Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2017 Oct;31(10):4174-4183.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5474-4. Epub 2017 Mar 24.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps

Robert J Schenck et al. Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of conventional saline-assisted piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) without submucosal lifting of colorectal polyps are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR to UEMR of large colorectal polyps.

Methods: Two hundred eighty-nine colorectal polyps were removed by a single endoscopist from 7/2007 to 2/2015 using EMR or UEMR. 135 polyps (EMR: 62, UEMR: 73) that measured ≥15 mm and had not undergone prior attempted polypectomy were evaluated for rates of complete macroscopic resection and adverse events. 101 of these polyps (EMR: 46, UEMR: 55) had at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy and were studied for rates of recurrence and the number of procedures required to achieve curative resection.

Results: The rate of complete macroscopic resection was higher following UEMR compared to EMR (98.6 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.012). UEMR had a lower recurrence rate at the first follow-up colonoscopy compared to EMR (7.3 vs. 28.3%, OR 5.0 for post-EMR recurrence, 95% CI: [1.5, 16.5], p = 0.008). UEMR required fewer procedures to reach curative resection than EMR (mean of 1.0 vs. 1.3, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse events.

Conclusions: UEMR appears superior to EMR for the removal of large colorectal polyps in terms of rates of complete macroscopic resection and recurrent (or residual) abnormal tissue. Compared to conventional EMR, UEMR may offer increased procedural effectiveness without compromising safety in the removal of large colorectal polyps without prior attempted resection.

Keywords: Adenoma recurrence; Colonoscopy; Colorectal polyps; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Underwater.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 May;75(5):1086-91 - PubMed
    1. Endoscopy. 2001 Aug;33(8):682-6 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Aug;70(2):344-9 - PubMed
    1. AMA Arch Surg. 1955 Jan;70(1):120-2 - PubMed
    1. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;109(2):183-9 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources