Cargando…

Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) of colorectal lesions is emerging as an alternative method to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, it is still controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness between UEMR and EMR. AIM: To evaluate the e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ni, Dong-Qiong, Lu, Yu-Ping, Liu, Xi-Qiao, Gao, Li-Ying, Huang, Xuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7642536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33195650
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826
_version_ 1783606108305227776
author Ni, Dong-Qiong
Lu, Yu-Ping
Liu, Xi-Qiao
Gao, Li-Ying
Huang, Xuan
author_facet Ni, Dong-Qiong
Lu, Yu-Ping
Liu, Xi-Qiao
Gao, Li-Ying
Huang, Xuan
author_sort Ni, Dong-Qiong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) of colorectal lesions is emerging as an alternative method to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, it is still controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness between UEMR and EMR. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps. METHODS: Clinical studies comparing the effectiveness or safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps were searched in medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, monographs, theses, and papers presented at conferences. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: Seven non-randomized controlled trials and one randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1382 patients (1511 polyps) were included in the study, including 722 who received UEMR and 789 who received EMR. In the UEMR and EMR groups, the en bloc resection rates were 85.87% and 73.89%, respectively, with a relative risk (RR) value of 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.30; P < 0.05). In the sub-group analysis, the en bloc resection rate showed no statistically significant difference between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps less than 20 mm in diameter. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps equal to or greater than 20 mm in diameter. The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates at 3-6 mo of the UEMR and EMR groups were 3.26% and 15.17%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.27 (95%CI: 0.09-0.83; P < 0.05). The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates of UEMR and EMR at 12 mo were 6.25% and 14.40%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.43 (95%CI: 0.20-0.92; P < 0.05). Additionally, the incidence of adverse events was 8.17% and 6.21%, respectively, with an RR value of 1.07 (95%CI: 0.50-2.30; P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: UEMR is an effective technique for colorectal polyps and appears to have some advantages over EMR, particularly with regard to some treatment outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7642536
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76425362020-11-13 Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis Ni, Dong-Qiong Lu, Yu-Ping Liu, Xi-Qiao Gao, Li-Ying Huang, Xuan World J Clin Cases Meta-Analysis BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) of colorectal lesions is emerging as an alternative method to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, it is still controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness between UEMR and EMR. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps. METHODS: Clinical studies comparing the effectiveness or safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps were searched in medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, monographs, theses, and papers presented at conferences. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: Seven non-randomized controlled trials and one randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1382 patients (1511 polyps) were included in the study, including 722 who received UEMR and 789 who received EMR. In the UEMR and EMR groups, the en bloc resection rates were 85.87% and 73.89%, respectively, with a relative risk (RR) value of 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.30; P < 0.05). In the sub-group analysis, the en bloc resection rate showed no statistically significant difference between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps less than 20 mm in diameter. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps equal to or greater than 20 mm in diameter. The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates at 3-6 mo of the UEMR and EMR groups were 3.26% and 15.17%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.27 (95%CI: 0.09-0.83; P < 0.05). The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates of UEMR and EMR at 12 mo were 6.25% and 14.40%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.43 (95%CI: 0.20-0.92; P < 0.05). Additionally, the incidence of adverse events was 8.17% and 6.21%, respectively, with an RR value of 1.07 (95%CI: 0.50-2.30; P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: UEMR is an effective technique for colorectal polyps and appears to have some advantages over EMR, particularly with regard to some treatment outcomes. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2020-10-26 2020-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7642536/ /pubmed/33195650 http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826 Text en ©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Meta-Analysis
Ni, Dong-Qiong
Lu, Yu-Ping
Liu, Xi-Qiao
Gao, Li-Ying
Huang, Xuan
Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
title Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
title_full Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
title_short Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis
title_sort underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis
topic Meta-Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7642536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33195650
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826
work_keys_str_mv AT nidongqiong underwatervsconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionintreatmentofcolorectalpolypsametaanalysis
AT luyuping underwatervsconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionintreatmentofcolorectalpolypsametaanalysis
AT liuxiqiao underwatervsconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionintreatmentofcolorectalpolypsametaanalysis
AT gaoliying underwatervsconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionintreatmentofcolorectalpolypsametaanalysis
AT huangxuan underwatervsconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionintreatmentofcolorectalpolypsametaanalysis