Tip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for flat colorectal neoplasia 10 mm or larger in size

被引:12
|
作者
Noh, Soo Min [1 ]
Kim, Jin Yong [1 ]
Park, Jae Cheol [1 ]
Oh, Eun Hye [1 ]
Kim, Jeongseok [1 ]
Ham, Nam Seok [1 ]
Hwang, Sung Wook [1 ]
Park, Sang Hyoung [1 ]
Ye, Byong Duk [1 ]
Byeon, Jeong-Sik [1 ]
Myung, Seung-Jae [1 ]
Yang, Suk-Kyun [1 ]
Yang, Dong-Hoon [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Gastroenterol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Colon; Rectum; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Neoplasm; INCOMPLETE POLYP RESECTION; SESSILE SERRATED POLYPS; INCISION; COLONOSCOPY; RISK; EMR;
D O I
10.1007/s00384-020-03604-z
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose A modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, Tip-in EMR, was recently introduced to enhance the complete resection of colorectal neoplasia (CRN). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Tip-in EMR for flat CRNs. Methods From January to September 2018, conventional or Tip-in EMR was consecutively performed for 112 flat CRNs >= 10 mm in diameter. Tip-in EMR was performed when en bloc snaring was impossible with conventional EMR or when a lesion was inadequately lifted owing to a previous forceps biopsy. We retrospectively collected the clinical, procedural, and histologic data of the conventional and Tip-in EMR groups and compared the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications between the two groups. Results Among 112 flat CRNs of 80 patients, conventional EMR and Tip-in EMR were performed for 74 and 38 lesions, respectively. The median lesion size was 12 (10-27) mm. Tip-in EMR was superior to conventional EMR in terms of en bloc resection (94.7% vs. 77.0%, p = 0.018) and histologic complete resection (76.3% vs. 54.1%, p = 0.022). There was no difference in postprocedural bleeding between the two groups; however, overall adverse events, including bleeding and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome, were more frequent in the Tip-in EMR group. Conclusions Tip-in EMR is a feasible technique for flat colorectal lesions >= 10 mm and is superior to conventional EMR with respect to en bloc and complete resection rates. The safety profiles of Tip-in EMR and conventional EMR should be compared via large-scale prospective studies.
引用
收藏
页码:1283 / 1290
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps
    Keith Siau
    Sauid Ishaq
    Sergio Cadoni
    Toshio Kuwai
    Abdulkani Yusuf
    Noriko Suzuki
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2018, 32 : 2656 - 2663
  • [22] Safety and efficacy of tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colorectal polyps: A single-center experience in Taiwan
    Lee, Chung-Ying
    Chen, Ming-Yao
    Lin, Hwai-Jeng
    Chien, Hsi-Yuan
    ADVANCES IN DIGESTIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 7 (02) : 58 - 62
  • [23] Cold snare endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm
    Chen, Zongyu J.
    Batts, Kenneth P.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2019, 90 (04) : 699 - 700
  • [24] Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors
    Hong, Seung Wook
    Yang, Dong-Hoon
    Lee, Yoo Jin
    Baek, Dong Hoon
    Chun, Jaeyoung
    Kim, Hyun Gun
    Kim, Sung Joo
    Hong, Seung-Mo
    Myung, Dae-Seong
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2024, 39 (02): : 238 - 247
  • [25] Risk factors of unintentional piecemeal resection in endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm
    Tsubasa Ishikawa
    Kenichiro Okimoto
    Tomoaki Matsumura
    Sadahisa Ogasawara
    Yoshihiro Fukuda
    Yoshio Kitsukawa
    Yuya Yokoyama
    Kengo Kanayama
    Naoki Akizue
    Yotaro Iino
    Yuki Ohta
    Hideaki Ishigami
    Takashi Taida
    Shin Tsuchiya
    Keiko Saito
    Hidehiro Kamezaki
    Akitoshi Kobayashi
    Yasuharu Kikuchi
    Minoru Tada
    Yuki Shiko
    Yoshihito Ozawa
    Jun Kato
    Taketo Yamaguchi
    Naoya Kato
    Scientific Reports, 14
  • [26] Anchoring endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial
    Oh, Chang Kyo
    Cho, Young-Seok
    Lee, Sung Hak
    Lee, Bo-In
    ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 55 (02) : 158 - 164
  • [27] Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Is the Choice Straightforward?
    Sundaram, Sridhar
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 162 (06) : 1775 - 1775
  • [28] Risk factors of unintentional piecemeal resection in endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm
    Ishikawa, Tsubasa
    Okimoto, Kenichiro
    Matsumura, Tomoaki
    Ogasawara, Sadahisa
    Fukuda, Yoshihiro
    Kitsukawa, Yoshio
    Yokoyama, Yuya
    Kanayama, Kengo
    Akizue, Naoki
    Iino, Yotaro
    Ohta, Yuki
    Ishigami, Hideaki
    Taida, Takashi
    Tsuchiya, Shin
    Saito, Keiko
    Kamezaki, Hidehiro
    Kobayashi, Akitoshi
    Kikuchi, Yasuharu
    Tada, Minoru
    Shiko, Yuki
    Ozawa, Yoshihito
    Kato, Jun
    Yamaguchi, Taketo
    Kato, Naoya
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01)
  • [29] EFFICACY OF UNDERWATER VERSUS CONVENTIONAL ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION OF LARGE COLORECTAL POLYPS
    Fiedler, Alexandra
    Dhindsa, Banreet
    Samson, Kaeli
    Barbaretta, Jason
    Scholten, Kyle
    Brittan, Kevin
    Bhat, Ishfaq
    Singh, Shailender
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2024, 99 (06) : AB524 - AB525
  • [30] Conventional and Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Are Similarly Efficacious at Removing Colorectal Polyps Smaller Than 15 mm in Size
    Jahann, Darius A.
    Schenck, Robert J.
    Stine, Jonathan G.
    Strand, Daniel S.
    Sauer, Bryan G.
    Shami, Vanessa M.
    Wang, Andrew Y.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2016, 83 (05) : AB388 - AB388