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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Oct 1;57(9):928-936.
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001763.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors ≤20 mm: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Zhikun Yin  1   2 , Ji Li  2 , Weilin Yang  3 , Weifeng Huang  2 , Dong Xu  2 , Xiaoyi Lei  2 , Jinyan Zhang  1   2   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors ≤20 mm: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Zhikun Yin et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is increasingly applied in the treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR).

Methods: The following electronic databases were searched from 2012 until November 20, 2021: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science databases, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection, and the secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events (delayed bleeding and delayed perforation), and recurrence rate.

Results: A total of 6 studies with 679 lesions (331 underwent UEMR and 348 CEMR) were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that UMER achieves a similar en bloc resection rate (87.6 vs. 89.9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 3.73; P =0.64; I2 =74%), a similar R0 resection rate (67.3 vs. 73.6%; OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.23; P =0.78; I2 =59%), a shorter procedure time (min) (mean difference [MD], -4.05, 95% CI: -6.40 to -1.71; P =0.0007; I2 =70%) compared with CEMR. There were no significant differences in the rates of delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and recurrence (2.4 vs. 1.7%, 0 vs. 0.6%, 2.2 vs. 4.4%, respectively).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that UEMR appears to be an effective and safe alternative to CEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Ishii R, Ohata K, Sakai E, et al. Simple scoring system for the diagnosis of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. Dig Endosc. 2021;33:399–407.
    1. Goda K, Kikuchi D, Yamamoto Y, et al. Endoscopic diagnosis of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors in Japan: Multicenter case series. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(Suppl 2):23–29.
    1. Miyamoto S, Suda G, Ishikawa M, et al. Genomic profiling of intestinal/mixed-type superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. JGH Open. 2021;5:1071–1077.
    1. Meijer LL, Alberga AJ, de Bakker JK, et al. Outcomes and treatment options for duodenal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2681–2692.
    1. Kakushima N, Kanemoto H, Tanaka M, et al. Treatment for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12501–12508.

MeSH terms