Cargando…

Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study

Background and study aims  Curability of colorectal tumors is associated with resection depth and layer in endoscopic resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not undergone sufficient histopathological evaluation. We conducted a pilot study to compare the effectiveness, includin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nomura, Hiroki, Tsuji, Shigetsugu, Utsunomiya, Manami, Kawasaki, Azusa, Tsuji, Kunihiro, Yoshida, Naohiro, Takemura, Kenichi, Katayanagi, Kazuyoshi, Minato, Hiroshi, Doyama, Hisashi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2022
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377830/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35979030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1864-6452
_version_ 1784768414173102080
author Nomura, Hiroki
Tsuji, Shigetsugu
Utsunomiya, Manami
Kawasaki, Azusa
Tsuji, Kunihiro
Yoshida, Naohiro
Takemura, Kenichi
Katayanagi, Kazuyoshi
Minato, Hiroshi
Doyama, Hisashi
author_facet Nomura, Hiroki
Tsuji, Shigetsugu
Utsunomiya, Manami
Kawasaki, Azusa
Tsuji, Kunihiro
Yoshida, Naohiro
Takemura, Kenichi
Katayanagi, Kazuyoshi
Minato, Hiroshi
Doyama, Hisashi
author_sort Nomura, Hiroki
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims  Curability of colorectal tumors is associated with resection depth and layer in endoscopic resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not undergone sufficient histopathological evaluation. We conducted a pilot study to compare the effectiveness, including resection depth and layer, of UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). Patients and methods  This study was a single-center, retrospective study. Patients with colorectal lesions were treated by UEMR or CEMR between January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible patients were selected from included patients in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. We compared the resection depth and layer and treatment results between the UEMR and CEMR groups. Results  We evaluated 55 patients undergoing UEMR and 291 patients undergoing CEMR. Using propensity score matching, we analyzed 54 lesions in each group. The proportion of specimens containing submucosal tissue was 100 % in both groups. The median thickness of the submucosal tissue was significantly greater in the CEMR group than in the UEMR group [1235 µm (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1020–1530 µm) vs. 950 µm (95 % CI, 830–1090 µm), respectively]. However, vertical margins were negative in all lesions in both groups. Conclusions  Our findings suggest that the median thickness of submucosal tissue in the UEMR group was about 1,000 μm. Even though the resection depth achieved with UEMR was more superficial than that achieved with CEMR, UEMR may be a treatment option, especially for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in diameter without suspicious findings of submucosal deeply invasive cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9377830
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93778302022-08-16 Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study Nomura, Hiroki Tsuji, Shigetsugu Utsunomiya, Manami Kawasaki, Azusa Tsuji, Kunihiro Yoshida, Naohiro Takemura, Kenichi Katayanagi, Kazuyoshi Minato, Hiroshi Doyama, Hisashi Endosc Int Open Background and study aims  Curability of colorectal tumors is associated with resection depth and layer in endoscopic resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not undergone sufficient histopathological evaluation. We conducted a pilot study to compare the effectiveness, including resection depth and layer, of UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). Patients and methods  This study was a single-center, retrospective study. Patients with colorectal lesions were treated by UEMR or CEMR between January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible patients were selected from included patients in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. We compared the resection depth and layer and treatment results between the UEMR and CEMR groups. Results  We evaluated 55 patients undergoing UEMR and 291 patients undergoing CEMR. Using propensity score matching, we analyzed 54 lesions in each group. The proportion of specimens containing submucosal tissue was 100 % in both groups. The median thickness of the submucosal tissue was significantly greater in the CEMR group than in the UEMR group [1235 µm (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1020–1530 µm) vs. 950 µm (95 % CI, 830–1090 µm), respectively]. However, vertical margins were negative in all lesions in both groups. Conclusions  Our findings suggest that the median thickness of submucosal tissue in the UEMR group was about 1,000 μm. Even though the resection depth achieved with UEMR was more superficial than that achieved with CEMR, UEMR may be a treatment option, especially for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in diameter without suspicious findings of submucosal deeply invasive cancer. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2022-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9377830/ /pubmed/35979030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1864-6452 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 commercial 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 Nomura, Hiroki
Tsuji, Shigetsugu
Utsunomiya, Manami
Kawasaki, Azusa
Tsuji, Kunihiro
Yoshida, Naohiro
Takemura, Kenichi
Katayanagi, Kazuyoshi
Minato, Hiroshi
Doyama, Hisashi
Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study
title Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study
title_full Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study
title_fullStr Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study
title_full_unstemmed Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study
title_short Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study
title_sort resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: a pilot study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377830/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35979030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1864-6452
work_keys_str_mv AT nomurahiroki resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT tsujishigetsugu resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT utsunomiyamanami resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT kawasakiazusa resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT tsujikunihiro resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT yoshidanaohiro resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT takemurakenichi resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT katayanagikazuyoshi resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT minatohiroshi resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy
AT doyamahisashi resectiondepthandlayerofunderwaterversusconventionalendoscopicmucosalresectionofintermediatesizedcolorectalpolypsapilotstudy