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
Review
. 2025 Jul 21.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11981-1. Online ahead of print.

Precut mucosectomy versus endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal lesions sized 10-30 mm: meta-analysis and systematic review

Miriam Chinzon  1 , Mateus Bond Boghossian  2 , Matheus de Oliveira Veras  2 , Evellin Souza Valentim Dos Santos  2 , Daryl Ramai  3 , Larissa Mercadante de Assis  2 , Vitor Hernandes Lopes  2 , Nelson Miyajima  2 , Wanderley Marques Bernardo  2 , Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura  2
Affiliations
Review

Precut mucosectomy versus endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal lesions sized 10-30 mm: meta-analysis and systematic review

Miriam Chinzon et al. Surg Endosc. .

Abstract

Background: Early-stage colorectal lesions are traditionally managed with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C). Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), though technically demanding, enables en bloc resection with negative margins. Precut mucosectomy (EMR-P) was developed to enhance en bloc resection rates by minimizing the risk of snare slippage during procedures.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared EMR-P with EMR-C, ESD, and Hybrid ESD (ESD-H). Databases were queried for studies reporting en bloc resection rate and complete histological resection rate (R0), as well outcomes including procedure time, recurrence rate, and adverse events. Risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity.

Results: Twelve studies, including 2.575 lesions (921 EMR-P, 615 EMR-C, 955 ESD, 84 ESD-H), were analyzed. EMR-P outperformed EMR-C in en bloc resection rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.03-1.33; P = 0.01) and R0 resection rates (RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15-1.57; P = 0.0002), particularly for flat lesions in the right colon. However, EMR-P was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Compared to ESD, EMR-P demonstrated lower en bloc resection rate (RR 0.85; 95% CI; 0.75-0.97, P = 0.02) but showed no significant difference R0 resection rate (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.88-1.02, P = 0.15). In head-to-head comparisons between EMR-P and ESD-H, no significant differences were observed in en bloc or complete resection rates.

Conclusion: EMR-P emerges as a promising technique for resecting flat colorectal lesions > 10 mm, particularly those in the right colon, by reducing the risk of snare slippage. Future RCTs are essential to establish EMR-P's role in managing large colorectal neoplasms and optimizing recurrence prevention strategies.

Keywords: Circumferential EMR; Colonoscopy; Endoscopic resection; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Precut mucosectomy; Simplified ESD.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Disclosures: Miriam Chinzon: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Mateus Bond Boghossian: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Matheus de Oliveira Veras: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Evellin Souza Valentim dos Santos: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Daryl Ramai: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Larissa Mercadante de Assis: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Vitor Hernandes Lopes declares no conflict of interest for this article. Nelson Miyajima: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Wanderley Marques Bernardo: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura: Declares no conflict of interest for this article. Ethical approval: This meta-analysis respected the globally recognized ethical principles in medical research literature.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Hankey BF, Shi W, Bond JH, Schapiro M, Panish JF, Stewart ET, Waye JD (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100370 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Pattarajierapan S, Takamaru H, Khomvilai S (2023) Difficult colorectal polypectomy: technical tips and recent advances. World J Gastroenterol. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v29.i17.2600 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I, Hirata M, Mouri R, Kanao H, Yoshida S, Chayama K (2007) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.02.032 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hirao M, Masuda K, Asanuma T, Naka H, Noda K, Matsuura K, Yamaguchi O, Ueda N (1988) Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer and other tumors with local injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine. Gastrointest Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(88)71327-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cho JH, Shin CM, Yoon H, Park YS, Kim N, Lee DH (2022) Comparison of endoscopic treatments for small gastric adenomas. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08710-9 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources