Cargando…
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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 comprehe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2020
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7695518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33269325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1287-9621 |
_version_ | 1783615206397575168 |
---|---|
author | Garg, Rajat Singh, Amandeep Mohan, Babu P. Mankaney, Gautam Regueiro, Miguel Chahal, Prabhleen |
author_facet | Garg, Rajat Singh, Amandeep Mohan, Babu P. Mankaney, Gautam Regueiro, Miguel Chahal, Prabhleen |
author_sort | Garg, Rajat |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7695518 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76955182020-12-01 Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis Garg, Rajat Singh, Amandeep Mohan, Babu P. Mankaney, Gautam Regueiro, Miguel Chahal, Prabhleen Endosc Int Open 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. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2020-12 2020-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7695518/ /pubmed/33269325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1287-9621 Text en 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 commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Garg, Rajat Singh, Amandeep Mohan, Babu P. Mankaney, Gautam Regueiro, Miguel Chahal, Prabhleen Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7695518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33269325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1287-9621 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gargrajat underwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT singhamandeep underwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mohanbabup underwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mankaneygautam underwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT regueiromiguel underwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chahalprabhleen underwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |