Outcomes for Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of 21-30-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Feasible Study

被引:2
|
作者
Okimoto, Kenichiro [1 ]
Matsumura, Tomoaki [1 ]
Matsusaka, Keisuke [2 ]
Inaba, Yosuke [3 ]
Ishikawa, Tsubasa [1 ]
Akizue, Naoki [1 ]
Kaneko, Tatsuya [1 ]
Ota, Masayuki [4 ]
Ohta, Yuki [1 ]
Taida, Takashi [1 ]
Saito, Keiko [1 ]
Ogasawara, Sadahisa [1 ]
Maruoka, Daisuke [1 ,5 ]
Kato, Jun [1 ]
Ikeda, Jun-ichiro [2 ,4 ]
Kato, Naoya [1 ]
机构
[1] Chiba Univ, Grad Sch Med, Dept Gastroenterol, Inohana 1-8-1, Chiba 2608670, Japan
[2] Chiba Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Chiba, Japan
[3] Chiba Univ Hosp Clin Res Ctr, Biostat Sect, Chiba, Japan
[4] Chiba Univ, Grad Sch Med, Dept Diagnost Pathol, Chiba, Japan
[5] Kameido Endoscopy & Gastroenterol Clin, Tokyo, Japan
关键词
UEMR; ESD; Colorectal polyp; Colorectal cancer; LARGE SESSILE; NEOPLASIA; LESIONS; EMR; PREVENTION; INJECTION; CANCER;
D O I
10.1007/s10620-023-08093-y
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Aims This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of 21-30 mm colonic polyps. Method We conducted a single-center RCT. Patients diagnosed with suspected colorectal intramucosal carcinoma (21- 30 mm and adaptable for both UEMR and ESD) were randomly assigned to the UEMR and ESD groups at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. We independently performed one-sample tests against the set threshold for each treatment. The significance level was set atp = 0.224. Result Eleven polyps each in the UEMR and ESD groups, respectively, were analyzed. The R0 resection rate (%) was 36 (95% confidence interval 11-69) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.002). The p-value against the set threshold for UEMR was 0.743, whereas that for ESD was < 0.001 (one-sample binomial test). The en bloc resection rates (%) were 82 (48-97) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.167). The mean treatment time (min) was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 +/- 6) than in the ESD group (48 +/- 29) (p = 0.001). Conclusion ESD could achieve a high R0 resection rate, while the en bloc resection rate was comparable between the two treatment techniques with less burden on patients undergoing UEMR for 21-30-mm colorectal polyps. [GRAPHICS] .
引用
收藏
页码:3963 / 3973
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
    Ni, Dong-Qiong
    Lu, Yu-Ping
    Liu, Xi-Qiao
    Gao, Li-Ying
    Huang, Xuan
    WORLD JOURNAL OF CLINICAL CASES, 2020, 8 (20) : 4826 - 4837
  • [32] Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps
    Ma, Bin
    Li, Peiwen
    Li, Wenya
    Yang, Shize
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2021, 93 (05) : 1192 - 1192
  • [33] Risk factors of unintentional piecemeal resection in endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm
    Ishikawa, Tsubasa
    Okimoto, Kenichiro
    Matsumura, Tomoaki
    Ogasawara, Sadahisa
    Fukuda, Yoshihiro
    Kitsukawa, Yoshio
    Yokoyama, Yuya
    Kanayama, Kengo
    Akizue, Naoki
    Iino, Yotaro
    Ohta, Yuki
    Ishigami, Hideaki
    Taida, Takashi
    Tsuchiya, Shin
    Saito, Keiko
    Kamezaki, Hidehiro
    Kobayashi, Akitoshi
    Kikuchi, Yasuharu
    Tada, Minoru
    Shiko, Yuki
    Ozawa, Yoshihito
    Kato, Jun
    Yamaguchi, Taketo
    Kato, Naoya
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01)
  • [34] Outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps-Insights from western India
    Sundaram, Sridhar
    Patil, Gaurav Kumar
    Jain, Aadish Kumar
    Dalal, Ankit
    Patil, Prachi
    Mehta, Shaesta
    Maydeo, Amit
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2025, 44 (01) : 80 - 87
  • [35] A novel gel provides durable submucosal cushion for endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection
    Chandrasekhara, Vinay
    Sigmon, John C., Jr.
    Surti, Vihar C.
    Kochman, Michael L.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2013, 27 (08): : 3039 - 3042
  • [36] Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study
    Stephane, Scheer
    Timothee, Wallenhorst
    Jeremie, Albouys
    Raphael, Olivier
    Martin, Dahan
    Emmanuelle, Pauliat
    Elodie, Leclerc
    Quentin, Denost
    Nikki, Christou
    Sonia, Brischoux
    Hugo, Lepetit
    Guillaume, Gschwind
    Romain, Legros
    Mathieu, Pioche
    Sophie, Geyl
    Jeremie, Jacques
    CLINICS AND RESEARCH IN HEPATOLOGY AND GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 46 (06)
  • [37] Endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas: endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection?
    Friedland, Shai
    ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 47 (02) : 99 - 100
  • [38] Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps
    Schenck, Robert J.
    Jahann, Darius A.
    Patrie, James T.
    Stelow, Edward B.
    Cox, Dawn G.
    Uppal, Dushant S.
    Sauer, Bryan G.
    Shami, Vanessa M.
    Strand, Daniel S.
    Wang, Andrew Y.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (10): : 4174 - 4183
  • [39] Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions
    Arezzo, Alberto
    Passera, Roberto
    Marchese, Nicola
    Galloro, Giuseppe
    Manta, Raffaele
    Cirocchi, Roberto
    UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL, 2016, 4 (01) : 18 - 29
  • [40] Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for en bloc resection of superficial pharyngeal carcinomas
    Okada, K.
    Tsuchida, T.
    Ishiyama, A.
    Taniguchi, T.
    Suzuki, S.
    Horiuchi, Y.
    Matsuo, Y.
    Yoshizawa, N.
    Suganuma, T.
    Omae, M.
    Kubota, M.
    Hirasawa, T.
    Yamamoto, Y.
    Inamori, M.
    Yamamoto, N.
    Nakajima, A.
    Fujisaki, J.
    Hoshino, E.
    Kawabata, K.
    Igarashi, M.
    ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 44 (06) : 556 - 564