Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Arthur Hoffman ◽  
Raja Atreya ◽  
Timo Rath ◽  
Markus Ferdinand Neurath
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Endoscopic Resection ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Full Thickness ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Gastrointestinal Lesions

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4–1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions. <b><i>Key Message:</i></b> Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

scholarly journals Prevention and Management of Complications and Education in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2511
Author(s):  
Yoshitsugu Misumi ◽  
Kouichi Nonaka
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Endoscopic Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Educational Methods ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Management Of Complications

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered superior to endoscopic mucosal resection as an endoscopic resection because of its higher en bloc resection rate, but it is more difficult to perform. As ESD techniques have become more common, and the range of treatment by ESD has expanded, the number of possible complications has also increased, and endoscopists need to manage them. In this report, we will review the management of critical complications, such as hemorrhage, perforation, and stenosis, and we will also discuss educational methods for acquiring and improving ESD skills.

scholarly journals Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. E154-E162
Author(s):  
Choon Seng Chong ◽  
Mark D. Muthiah ◽  
Darren Jun Hao Tan ◽  
Cheng Han Ng ◽  
Xiong Chang Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colon Polyps ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

Abstract Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection (P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm (P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm (P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm (P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

scholarly journals A80 ADVANCED ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF LARGE POLYPS & EARLY NEOPLASIA: OUTCOMES OF ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 94-95
Author(s):  
B Zhao ◽  
D Chahal ◽  
E Lam ◽  
F Donnellan
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Endoscopic Resection ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Vancouver General Hospital ◽  
Colon Polyps ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection

Abstract Background Recent advances have resulted in a new technique termed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). This procedure has been successful at removing large or complex polyps and achieving remission rates comparable to surgery. EMR can also be used to remove early, non-metastatic cancer and they are less invasive than surgery. However, they have been associated with their own complications, most serious of which being perforation. This procedure has recently become available in British Columbia for resection of both complex polyps and early established cancers in the colon. Aims Here we present patient outcomes of EMR procedures for the resection of colorectal polyps in British Columbia. Methods Retrospective data were collected on all EMR procedures done in Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital (Vancouver, B.C.) from October 2012 (when procedure became available) to July 2019. Inclusion criteria were all adults who had undergone EMR for resection of polyps in the colon. Exclusion criteria were patients younger than 18 or patients who had EMR that resected polyps in the upper GI tract. Patients were referred to one of two endoscopists when one or more polyps suitable for EMR were identified during colonoscopy by other gastroenterologists. Collected data included patient demographics, polyp characteristics, procedure outcome, and complications. Results There were 211 EMR procedures performed on 182 patients (48.9% male). Patient age ranged from 27 to 86 (mean = 67.1). A total of 244 colon polyps were removed with an average size of 2.91 cm and ranged from 0.8 cm to 15 cm. Resected polyps had the following distribution: ascending colon (63.5%), transverse colon (10.2%), descending colon (5.7%), sigmoid colon (15.2%), and rectum (5.3%). Of those that reported resection type, 84.2% were piecemeal and 15.8% were en bloc. 40.9% of polyps were tubulovillous adenoma, 33.2% were tubular, 16.2% were sessile serrated, 6.4% were villous, and 3.4% were adenocarcinoma. Patients from 11 of the 211 EMR cases (5.2%) experienced post-procedure bleed and 4 of these 11 patients (36.4%) had been on anti-platelet or anti-coagulants (discontinued before procedure). Overall, patients from 51 (24.2%) EMR cases were on anti-platelet or anti-coagulants. 33 cases (15.6%) had residual polyps at the resection site that required additional endoscopic resection during follow-up and 14 patients (6.6%) required surgery. None of the EMR procedures resulted in perforation. Conclusions EMR is an effective minimally-invasive procedures that can be used to remove large, complicated colonic polyps and achieve long-term remission rate. The procedure has an acceptable risk profile, with complication and re-intervention rate similar or less than other procedures used to remove large, complicated polyps. Funding Agencies None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document