Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2150-9899
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Background and study aims Colorectal malignancy is a leading cause of death. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is a strategy used to resect precancerous lesions that involves injecting fluid beneath a polyp to create a gap for resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newer method that forgoes injection, instead filling the intestinal cavity with water to facilitate polyp resection. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of these approaches by synthesizing the most contemporary evidence.
Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched from inception through November 11, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR and CEMR for resection of colorectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of en bloc resection and secondary outcomes included recurrence, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs).
Results A total of 2539 studies were identified through our systematic literature search. After screening, seven RCTs with a total of 1581 polyps were included. UEMR was associated with significantly increased rates of en bloc resection (RR 1.18 [1.03, 1.35]; I2 = 76.6%) versus conventional approaches. No significant differences were found in procedure time, recurrence, or AEs.
Conclusions UEMR is a promising effective technique for removal of colorectal lesions. The most contemporary literature indicates that it improves en bloc resection rate without increasing procedure time, recurrence, or AEs (PROSPERO ID CRD42022374935).
Keywords
Polyps / adenomas / ... - Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Endoscopic resection (polypectomy, ESD, EMRc, ...) - Colorectal cancerPublication History
Received: 22 February 2023
Accepted after revision: 31 July 2023
Accepted Manuscript online:
09 August 2023
Article published online:
09 October 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE. et al. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022; 72: 7-33 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. (PMID: 35020204)
- 2 Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA. et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 458-479 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122. (PMID: 33657038)
- 3 Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010; 116: 544-573 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24760. (PMID: 19998273)
- 4 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, OʼBrien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370. (PMID: 22356322)
- 5 Islami F, Ward EM, Sung H. et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Part 1: National Cancer Statistics. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 1648-1669 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab131. (PMID: 34240195)
- 6 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic Removal of Colorectal Lesions-Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1095-1129 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.018. (PMID: 32122632)
- 7 Gaglia A, Sarkar S. Evaluation and long-term outcomes of the different modalities used in colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Ann Gastroenterol 2017; 30: 145-151 DOI: 10.20524/aog.2016.0104. (PMID: 28243034)
- 8 Siau K, Ishaq S, Cadoni S. et al. Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 2656-2663 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5960-8. (PMID: 29101560)
- 9 Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah J. et al. "Underwater" EMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1086-1091
- 10 Hamerski C, Wang A, Amato A. et al. Injection-assisted versus underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without injection for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: interim analysis of an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB55-AB56
- 11 Nagl S, Ebigbo A, Goelder SK. et al. Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 1460-1474.e1461 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.044. (PMID: 34371000)
- 12 Yamashina T, Uedo N, Akasaka T. et al. Comparison of underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-size colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 451-461.e452
- 13 Yen AW, Leung JW, Wilson MD. et al. Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 643-654.e642
- 14 Zhang Z, Xia Y, Cui H. et al. Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial: (UEMR vs. CEMR for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps). BMC Gastroenterol 2020; 20: 311 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01457-y. (PMID: 32967616)
- 15 Lenz L, Martins B, Andrade de Paulo G. et al. Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: 549-558
- 16 Sánchez JR, Alvarez-Gonzalez MA, Pellisé M. et al. Underwater vs. conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 5: 941-951.e2
- 17 Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB. et al. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc 2016; 104: 240-243 DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014. (PMID: 27366130)
- 18 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. (PMID: 19621072)
- 19 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. (PMID: 31462531)
- 20 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1283-1293 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012. (PMID: 21839614)
- 21 Ryan R, Hill S. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. 2016 http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources
- 22 Zhang J, Zhu S, Tan D. et al. A meta-analysis of early oral refeeding and quickly increased diet for patients with mild acute pancreatitis. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 14-19
- 23 Choi AY, Moosvi Z, Shah S. et al. Underwater versus conventional EMR for colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 378-389 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.009. (PMID: 33068608)
- 24 Tziatzios G, Gkolfakis P, Triantafyllou K. et al. Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2021; 53: 958-964
- 25 Li P, Ma B, Gong S. et al. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 3003-3013 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07745-8. (PMID: 32577813)