Search

Objectives: Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs). Material and methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence. Results: Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P

ObjectiveEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD.DesignA literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions.Results51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7.ConclusionThe low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endocuff - a plastic device with flexible projections - mounted on the distal tip of the colonoscope, promises improved colonic mucosa inspection. AIM: To elucidate the effect of Endocuff on adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC). METHODS: Literature searches identified randomized-controlled trials evaluating Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) vs conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, AADR and MAC. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using fixed or random effect model, as appropriate, and it is shown as relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] and mean difference (MD) (95%CI). The rate of device removal in EAC arms was also calculated. RESULTS: We identified nine studies enrolling 6038 patients. All studies included mixed population (screening, surveillance and diagnostic examinations). Seven and two studies evaluated the first and the second-generation device, respectively. EAC was associated with increased ADR compared to CC [RR (95%CI): 1.18 (1.05-1.32); Ι 2 = 71%]; EAC benefits more endoscopists with ADR ≤ 35% compared to those with ADR > 35% [RR (95%CI): 1.37 (1.08-1.74); Ι 2 = 49% vs 1.10 (0.99-1.24); Ι 2 = 71%]. In terms of AADR and MAC, no difference was detected between EAC and CC [RR (95%CI): 1.03 (0.85-1.25); Ι 2 = 15% and MD (95%CI): 0.30 (-0.17-0.78); Ι 2 = 99%]. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference between the two device generations regarding all three endpoints. In EAC arms, the device had to be removed in 3% (95%CI: 2%-5%) of the cases mainly due to tortuous sigmoid or presence of diverticula along it. CONCLUSION: EAC increases ADR compared to CC, especially for endoscopists with lower ADR. On the other hand, no significant effect on AADR and MAC was detected.