Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Polyps Resected Using Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (UEMR) Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (CEMR)

被引:9
|
作者
Mouchli, Mohamad Awf [1 ]
Reddy, Shravani [2 ]
Walsh, Chirstopher [2 ]
Mir, Adil [2 ]
Bierle, Lindsey [2 ]
Chitnavis, Vikas [3 ]
Yeaton, Paul [3 ]
Shakhatreh, Mohammad [3 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin, Gastroenterol, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[2] Virginia Tech Carillon Sch Med, Carillon Clin, Internal Med, Roanoke, VA USA
[3] Virginia Tech Carillon Sch Med, Carillon Clin, Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Roanoke, VA USA
关键词
polypectomy; piecemeal; recurrence; underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uemr); conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cemr); NONPEDUNCULATED COLORECTAL LESIONS; ADENOMA RECURRENCE; RISK-FACTORS; LOCAL RECURRENCE; EMR; POLYPECTOMY; COLONOSCOPY; SURVEILLANCE; SURGERY;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.11485
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is reported to be superior to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CMER) for the complete resection of large polyps and may offer increased procedural efficiency. Aims To compare recurrence rates and adverse events between UEMR and CEMR and define risk factors related to recurrence. Also, to assess recurrence rates in piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) based on the number of pieces resected. Methods We identified all patients with large polyps treated using the UEMR technique at Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA, USA between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 with follow-up through October of 2018. We matched the UEMR patients with patients treated using the CEMR technique (1:2 matching, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the cumulative risks of polyp recurrence. The Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to assess risk factors for developing polyp recurrence. Results Sixty-eight patients (mean age: 63.4 +/- 12.5 years; 52.9% males) with polyps removed using the UEMR technique (Group 1) were matched with 122 patients (mean age: 64.4 +/- 10.0 years; 51.6% males) who had polyps removed using CEMR (Group 2). Polyps resected in fewer pieces (>= 3) had lower recurrence rates compared to the ones resected in >3 pieces. Right colon polyps removed using UEMR had a lower recurrence rate compared to right colon polyps resected using CEMR. Polyp size and a high degree of dysplasia were associated with a high risk of polyp recurrence after resection. Completing advanced endoscopy training was also associated with a lower risk of recurrence. Conclusion UEMR had a lower recurrence rate compared with CEMR for right colon polyps. Factors associated with recurrence included the degree of training, high-grade dysplasia, and polyp size.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] OUTCOMES OF GI POLYPS RESECTED USING UNDERWATER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION (UEMR) COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL EMR (CEMR)
    Mouchli, Mohamad
    Walsh, Christopher
    Reddy, Shravani
    Mir, Adil S.
    Kanth, Rajan
    Kesar, Varun
    Chitnavis, Vikas
    Yeaton, Paul
    Shakhatreh, Mohammad
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2019, 156 (06) : S379 - S380
  • [2] Outcomes of Polyps Resected Using Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (UEMR): Carilion Clinic Experience
    Mouchli, Mohamad A.
    Summey, Robert
    Walsh, Christopher
    Reddy, Shravani
    Mir, Adil
    Kanth, Rajan
    Chitnavis, Vikas
    Yeaton, Paul
    Shakhatreh, Mohammad
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 113 : S87 - S87
  • [3] Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps
    Ma, Bin
    Li, Peiwen
    Li, Wenya
    Yang, Shize
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2021, 93 (05) : 1192 - 1192
  • [4] Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps
    Robert J. Schenck
    Darius A. Jahann
    James T. Patrie
    Edward B. Stelow
    Dawn G. Cox
    Dushant S. Uppal
    Bryan G. Sauer
    Vanessa M. Shami
    Daniel S. Strand
    Andrew Y. Wang
    [J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 2017, 31 : 4174 - 4183
  • [5] Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Is Associated With Fewer Recurrences and Earlier Curative Resections Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Large Colorectal Polyps
    Schenck, Robert J.
    Jahann, Darius A.
    Patrie, James T.
    Sauer, Bryan G.
    Shami, Vanessa M.
    Strand, Daniel S.
    Wang, Andrew Y.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2015, 110 : S569 - S570
  • [6] Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps
    Schenck, Robert J.
    Jahann, Darius A.
    Patrie, James T.
    Stelow, Edward B.
    Cox, Dawn G.
    Uppal, Dushant S.
    Sauer, Bryan G.
    Shami, Vanessa M.
    Strand, Daniel S.
    Wang, Andrew Y.
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (10): : 4174 - 4183
  • [7] Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Is the Choice Straightforward?
    Sundaram, Sridhar
    [J]. GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 162 (06) : 1775 - 1775
  • [8] Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps
    Brierley, Rob
    [J]. LANCET GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2021, 6 (06): : 427 - 427
  • [9] Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection
    Tan, Darren Jun Hao
    Ng, Cheng Han
    Lim, Xiong Chang
    Lim, Wen Hui
    Yuen, Linus Zhen Han
    Koh, Jin Hean
    Nistala, Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu
    Ho, Khek-Yu
    Chong, Choon Seng
    Muthiah, Mark D.
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN, 2022, 10 (01) : E154 - E162
  • [10] "Underwater" Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (UEMR) Without Submucosal Injection for Large Sessile Colorectal Polyps
    Binmoeller, Kenneth
    Shah, Janak N.
    Bhat, Yasser M.
    Kane, Steve
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 75 (04) : 351 - 351