scholarly journals Pedunculated colorectal polyps with heads ≤ 1 cm in diameter can be resected using cold snare polypectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Kudo ◽  
A Horiuchi ◽  
I Horiuchi ◽  
M Kajiyama ◽  
A Morita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Total Procedure Time ◽  
Cold Snare Polypectomy ◽  
Immediate Bleeding ◽  
Total Procedure ◽  
Snare Polypectomy

Background and study aims : Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is not recommended for the resection of pedunculated colorectal polyp. The aim of this study was to examine the adequacy of CSP compared to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for the complete resection of pedunculated polyps with heads ≤ 1 cm in diameter. Patients and methods : This was a retrospective study of a cohort of consecutive outpatients who had resection of pedunculated polyps with heads 6-10 mm in diameter using either dedicated CSP or HSP from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of delayed bleeding. Secondary outcome measures included total procedure time, en bloc resection rate, immediate bleeding, and number of clips used. Results : 415 patients with 444 eligible polyps were enrolled; the CSP group (363 patients; 386 polyps) and HSP group (52 patients; 58 polyps). Patient characteristics, polyp characteristics and en bloc resection rate were similar between groups. The mean total procedure time and mean number (range) of hemostatic clips/patient used were significantly lower with CSP than with HSP (18± 8 min vs. 25± 9 min, P<0.001; 1.1 ± 0.6 (1-3) vs.3.1 ± 1.6 (1-5), respectively, P<0.001). Delayed bleeding occurred significantly less frequently in the CSP, 0% (0/363 vs.3.8% (2/52) in the HSP group (P<0.001), although immediate bleeding was significantly higher in CSP than HSP (84% (325/386) vs. 12% (7/58), P<0.001). Conclusion : Pedunculated colorectal polyps with heads ≤ 1 cm can be removed using CSP, which has several advantages over HSP.

scholarly journals Cold snare polypectomy for large sessile serrated lesions is safe but follow-up is needed: A single-centre retrospective study

2020 ◽  
pp. 205064062096464
Author(s):  
Naohisa Yoshida ◽  
Ken Inoue ◽  
Yuri Tomita ◽  
Hikaru Hashimoto ◽  
Satoshi Sugino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Histopathological Diagnosis ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Cold Snare Polypectomy ◽  
Serrated Lesions ◽  
Snare Polypectomy

Background and aim Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is growing in popularity due to its safety and convenience. Its indication is benign tumours such as adenoma and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) <10 mm in size. CSP for SSLs ≥10 mm in size has not been well examined. In this study, we aimed the feasibility of this treatment regarding therapeutic results and local recurrence. Methods This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. We reviewed SSLs with or without dysplasia of 10–20 mm that were resected by CSP from 2014 to 2020. All tumours were diagnosed endoscopically as SSLs without dysplasia before CSP with the help of magnifying narrow band imaging or blue laser imaging. We analysed the lesion characteristics, en bloc resection, histopathological diagnosis, adverse events and local recurrence. We analysed risk factors for recurrence, comparing recurrent lesions to non-recurrent lesions. We also compared risk factors for lesions 10–14 mm in size to those for lesions 15–20 mm in size. Results We analysed 160 lesions in 100 patients ( Mage± SD=67.7±10.1 years). The polyp size ( M± SD) was 11.8±2.8 mm, and the en bloc resection rate was 60.0% (96 cases). The rates of massive perioperative haemorrhage, postoperative haemorrhage and perforation were 1.3%, 0% and 0%, respectively. Regarding histopathological diagnosis, two (1.2%) cases showed SSLs with high-grade dysplasia. The recurrence rate in 101 lesions with a median follow-up period of 18 months (interquartile range 12–24 months) was 5.0%. There were no significant risk factors such as tumour size, location, morphology and so on in terms of recurrence. All recurrent cases could be resected by repeat CSP. The recurrence rates of lesions 10–14 mm in size and 15–20 mm in size were 4.7% and 6.3%, respectively ( p=0.713). Conclusion CSP of SSLs ≥10 mm in size according to magnifying endoscopic diagnosis was safe and promising, but the rate of recurrence was slightly high, meaning that close follow-up is required.

scholarly journals Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (12) ◽  
pp. E1884-E1894
Author(s):  
Rajat Garg ◽  
Amandeep Singh ◽  
Babu P. Mohan ◽  
Gautam Mankaney ◽  
Miguel Regueiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Incomplete Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Mucosal Resection

Abstract Background and study aims Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps has been reported to have good outcomes in recent studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of UEMR to conventional EMR (CEMR). Methods A comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) was performed to identify studies that reported outcome of UEMR and CEMR for colorectal lesions. Outcomes assessed included incomplete resection, rate of recurrence, en bloc resection, adverse events (AEs) for UEMR and CEMR. Results A total of 1,651 patients with 1,704 polyps were included from nine studies. There was a significantly lower rate of incomplete resection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.05–0.78, P = 0.02) and polyp recurrence (OR: 0.41, 95 % CI, 0.24–0.72, P = 0.002) after UEMR. Compared to CEMR, rates overall complications (relative risk [RR]: 0.66 (95 % CI, 0.48–0.90) (P = 0.008), and intra-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.59, 95 % CI, 0.41–0.84, P = 0.004) were significantly lower with UEMR. The recurrence rate was also lower for large non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 10 mm (OR 0.24, 95 % CI, 0.10–0.57, P = 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm (OR 0.14, 95 % CI, 0.02–0.72, P = 0.01). The rates of en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that UEMR is more effective and safer than CEMR with lower rates of recurrence and AEs. UEMR use should be encouraged over CEMR.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH COMPLETE CLIP CLOSURE AFTER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION OF LARGE COLORECTAL POLYPS.

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oswaldo Ortiz ◽  
Douglas K. Rex ◽  
Grimm Ian ◽  
Matthew Moyer ◽  
Muhammad K Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Mucosal Defect ◽  
Large Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Clip Closure

Background. Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of ≥20 mm non-pedunculated polyps reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. Aim: Evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of the CLIP STUDY (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when there was no remaining visible mucosal defect and clips were <1cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. Results: 458 patients (age 65, 58% men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4%) and was not complete for 156 (31.6%). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (OR 1.06 for every mm decrease [1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). Conclusions: Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost 1 out of 3 resected large non-pedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable and highlight the need for alternative closure options and preventative bleeding measures.

scholarly journals Comparison of underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for removing sessile colorectal polyps: a propensity-score matched cohort study

2019 ◽  
Vol 07 (11) ◽  
pp. E1528-E1536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsu-Chih Chien ◽  
Noriya Uedo ◽  
Ping-Hsin Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Muscle Layer ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Matched Pairs ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method for removing sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm. Recently, underwater EMR (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. However, the effectiveness and safety of UEMR compared with conventional EMR is un clear. Patients and methods In this 1:1 propensity score (PS) matched retrospective cohort study, we compared the en bloc resection rates, procedure time, intraprocedural and delayed bleeding rates, and incidence of muscle layer injury. We also performed subgroup analyses by sizes of polyps (< 20 mm and ≥ 20 mm). Results Among 350 polyps in 315 patients from August 2012 to November 2017, we identified 121 PS-matched pairs. Mean polyp size was 16.8 mm. With similar en bloc resection rates (EMR: 82.6 % vs. UEMR: 87.6 %, rate difference: 5.0, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: – 4 to 13.9 %), UEMR demonstrated a shorter resection time (10.8 min vs. 8.6 min, difference: – 2.2 min, 95 % CI: – 4.1 to – 0.3 min) and a lower intraprocedural bleeding rate (15.7 % vs. 5.8 %, rate difference: – 9.9 %, 95 % CI: – 17.6 to – 2.2 %). Incidence of delayed bleeding and muscle layer injury were low in both groups. For polyps < 20 mm, effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar in both groups. For polyps ≥ 20 mm (42 PS-matched pairs), the UEMR group has a comparable en bloc resection rate with shorter procedure time and superior safety outcomes Conclusions UEMR achieved an en bloc resection rate comparable to conventional EMR with less intraprocedural bleeding and a shorter procedure time.

Risk Factors of Delayed Bleeding After Cold Snare Polypectomy for Colorectal Polyps: A Multicenter Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshikazu Inagaki ◽  
Naohisa Yoshida ◽  
Kohei Fukumoto ◽  
Kyoichi Kassai ◽  
Ken Inoue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Cold Snare Polypectomy ◽  
Snare Polypectomy

scholarly journals Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeongseok Kim ◽  
Jisup Kim ◽  
Eun Hye Oh ◽  
Nam Seok Ham ◽  
Sung Wook Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
The Mean

AbstractSmall rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated using cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C), which requires additional effort to apply a dedicated cap and snare. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a simpler modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, so-called anchored snare-tip EMR (ASEMR), for the treatment of small rectal NETs, comparing it with EMR-C. We retrospectively evaluated 45 ASEMR and 41 EMR-C procedures attempted on small suspected or established rectal NETs between July 2015 and May 2020. The mean (SD) lesion size was 5.4 (2.2) mm and 5.2 (1.7) mm in the ASEMR and EMR-C groups, respectively (p = 0.558). The en bloc resection rates of suspected or established rectal NETs were 95.6% (43/45) and 100%, respectively (p = 0.271). The rates of histologic complete resection of rectal NETs were 94.1% (32/34) and 88.2% (30/34), respectively (p = 0.673). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the ASEMR group than in the EMR-C group (3.12 [1.97] vs. 4.13 [1.59] min, p = 0.024). Delayed bleeding occurred in 6.7% (3/45) and 2.4% (1/41) of patients, respectively (p = 0.618). In conclusion, ASEMR was less time-consuming than EMR-C, and showed similar efficacy and safety profiles. ASEMR is a feasible treatment option for small rectal NETs.

ID: 3518501 EN-BLOC RESECTION RATE OF COLORECTAL POLYPS ≤ 20 MM IS LOW AMONG ADVANCED ENDOSCOPY TRAINEES

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB70
Author(s):  
William W. King ◽  
Peter V. Draganov ◽  
Andrew Y. Wang ◽  
Dushant Uppal ◽  
Nikhil A. Kumta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc

scholarly journals Endoscopic submucosal dissection of 301 large colorectal neoplasias: outcome and learning curve from a specialized center in Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (11) ◽  
pp. E1340-E1348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl-Fredrik Rönnow ◽  
Noriya Uedo ◽  
Ervin Toth ◽  
Henrik Thorlacius
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Colorectal Neoplasia ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
High Rate ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Immediate Bleeding

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows en bloc resection of large colorectal lesions but ESD experience is limited outside Asia. This study evaluated implementation of ESD in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia in a Western center. Patients and methods Three hundred and one cases of colorectal ESD (173 rectal and 128 colonic lesions) were retrospectively evaluated in terms of outcome, learning curve and complications. Results Median size was 4 cm (range 1 – 12.5). En bloc resection was achieved in 241 cases amounting to an en bloc resection rate of 80 %. R0 resection was accomplished in 207 cases (69 %), RX and R1 were attained in 83 (27 %) and 11 (4 %) cases, respectively. Median time was 98 min (range 10 – 588) and median proficiency was 7.2 cm2/h. Complications occurred in 24 patients (8 %) divided into 12 immediate perforations, five delayed perforations, one immediate bleeding and six delayed bleedings. Six patients (2 %), all with proximal lesions, had emergency surgery. Two hundred and four patients were followed up endoscopically and median follow-up time was 13 months (range 3 – 53) revealing seven recurrences (3 %). En bloc rate improved gradually from 60 % during the first period to 98 % during the last period. ESD proficiency significantly improved between the first study period (3.6 cm2/h) and the last study period (10.8 cm2/h). Conclusions This study represents the largest material on colorectal ESD in the west and shows that colorectal ESD can be implemented in clinical routine in western countries after appropriate training and achieve a high rate of en bloc and R0 resection with a concomitant low incidence of complications. ESD of proximal colonic lesions should be attempted with caution during the learning curve because of higher risk of complications.

scholarly journals Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. E1820-E1826
Author(s):  
William W. King ◽  
Peter V. Draganov ◽  
Andrew Y. Wang ◽  
Dushant Uppal ◽  
Amir Rumman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Polyp Size ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Piecemeal Resection

Abstract Background and study aims En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80–16.50; P = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23–16.88; P = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55–18.4; P = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31–38.9; P = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13–7.91; P = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05–22.61; P = 0.04). Conclusions In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.

scholarly journals Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhixin Zhang ◽  
Yonghong Xia ◽  
Hongyao Cui ◽  
Xin Yuan ◽  
Chunnian Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a recently developed technique and can be performed during water-aided or ordinary colonoscopy for the treatment of colorectal polyps. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) of small non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Methods Patients with small size, non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (4–9 mm in size) who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were enrolled in this multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, an UEMR group and a CEMR group. Efficacy and safety were compared between groups. Results In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the complete resection rate was 83.1% (59/71) in the UEMR group and 87.3% (62/71) in the CEMR group. The en-bloc resection rate was 94.4% (67/71) in the UEMR group and 91.5% (65/71) in the CEMR group (difference 2.9%; 90% CI − 4.2 to 9.9%), showed noninferiority (noninferiority margin − 5.7% < − 4.2%). No significant difference in procedure time (81 s vs. 72 s, P = 0.183) was observed. Early bleeding was observed in 1.4% of patients in the CEMR group (1/71) and 1.4% of patients in the UEMR group (1/71). None of the patients in the UEMR group complained of postprocedural bloody stool, whereas two patients in the CEMR group (2/64) reported this adverse event. Conclusion Our results indicate that UEMR is safer and just as effective as CEMR in En-bloc resection for the treatment of small colorectal polyps as such, UEMR is recommended as an alternative approach to excising small and non-pedunculated colorectal adenomatous polyps. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov, NCT03833492. Retrospectively registered on February 7, 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document