Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Darren Jun Hao Tan; Cheng Han Ng; Xiong Chang Lim; Wen Hui Lim; Linus Zhen Han Yuen; Jin Hean Koh; Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Nistala; Khek-Yu Ho; Choon Seng Chong; Mark D Muthiah

doi:10.1055/a-1633-3230

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Endosc Int Open. 2022 Jan 14;10(1):E154-E162. doi: 10.1055/a-1633-3230. eCollection 2022 Jan.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
² Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
³ Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.

Abstract

Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

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/).