Central side-effects of therapies based on CB1 cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists: focus on anxiety and depression.

F. Moreira,M. Grieb,B. Lutz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2008.09.003

2009-02-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Takeshi Yamashina,Noboru Hanaoka,Takeshi Setoyama,Jun Watanabe,Masahiro Banno,Hiroyuki Marusawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17261

2021-08-17

Cureus

Abstract:Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (CEMR) and was reported to be useful for resecting large colonic polyps. Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these two methods by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We comprehensively searched multiple databases until July 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR with CEMR. The primary outcomes were the proportion of R0 resection and mean procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of en bloc resection and all adverse events. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in www.protocols.io (Protocol Integer ID: 40849). We included six RCTs (1,374 polyps). We judged that a meta-analysis was not available, and the data were summarized narratively for the proportion of R0 resection. Regarding procedure time, UEMR likely resulted in a large reduction (mean difference = -64.3 seconds; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -122.5 to -6.0 seconds; I2 = 86%; moderate certainty of evidence). UEMR likely resulted in a large increase in en bloc resection (odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.98; I2 = 60%; moderate certainty of evidence). Percentages of adverse events were 0-17% with CEMR and 0-16% with UEMR. In summary, UEMR might have higher efficacy than CEMR in the endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with likely a large reduction in procedure time.
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an “Underwater” revolution?

Yoji Takeuchi,Satoki Shichijo,Noriya Uedo,Ryu Ishihara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/deo2.84

2022-01-09

DEN Open

Abstract:Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newly developed technique for the removal of colorectal, duodenal, esophageal, gastric, ampullary, and small intestinal lesions. We performed a PubMed literature search for articles reporting UEMR outcomes for colorectal polyps. Four randomized controlled trials, nine non-randomized prospective trials, 16 retrospective studies, and 27 case reports were selected for assessment of the efficacy and safety of UEMR. We summarized the therapeutic outcomes of UEMR in each category according to the lesion characteristics [small size (<10 mm), intermediate size (10-19 mm), large size (≥20 mm), recurrent lesion, and rectal neuroendocrine tumor], and calculated the incidence of adverse events among the included articles. As the treatment outcomes for small polyps appeared similar between UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR), UEMR can be a standard procedure for small colorectal polyps suspicious for high-grade dysplasia to avoid incomplete removal of occult invasive cancer by cold snare polypectomy. As UEMR showed satisfactory outcomes for intermediate-size lesions and recurrent lesions after endoscopic resection, UEMR can be a standard procedure for these lesions. Regarding large lesions and rectal neuroendocrine tumors, comparisons of UEMR with current standard methods for them were lacking, and further investigations are warranted. Adverse events appeared comparable or less frequent for UEMR compared with CEMR but still existed. Therefore, careful implementation of this new technique in clinical practice is important for its widespread use.
Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Saurabh Chandan,Jay Bapaye,Shahab R Khan,Babu P Mohan,Daryl Ramai,Dushyant S Dahiya,Mohammad Bilal,Peter V Draganov,Mohamed O Othman,Joaquin Rodriguez Sánchez,Gursimran S Kochhar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2117-8327

2023-08-16

Abstract:Background and study aims Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is limited by low en-bloc resection rates, especially for large (> 20 mm) lesions. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative for colorectal polyps and is being shown to improve en-bloc resection rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through November 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal polyps. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risks (RRs) of R0 and en-bloc resection, polyp recurrence, resection time, and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with 1458 patients (U-EMR: 739, C-EMR: 719) were included. The pooled rate of en-bloc resection was significantly higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 70.17% (confidence interval [CI] 46.68-86.34) vs 58.14% (CI 31.59-80.68), respectively, RR 1.21 (CI 1.01-1.44). R0 resection rates were higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 58.1% (CI 29.75-81.9) vs 44.6% (CI 17.4-75.4), RR 1.25 (CI 0.99-1.6). For large polyps (> 20 mm), en-bloc resection rates were comparable between the two techniques, RR 1.24 (CI 0.83-1.84). Resection times were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR, standardized mean difference -1.21 min (CI -2.57 to -0.16). Overall pooled rates of perforation, and immediate and delayed bleeding were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR. Pooled rate of polyp recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly lower with U-EMR than with C-EMR, RR 0.62 (CI 0.41-0.94). Conclusions Colorectal U-EMR results in higher en-bloc resection and lower recurrence rates when compared to C-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.
Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm

Xue-Qun Zhang,Jian-Zhong Sang,Lei Xu,Xin-Li Mao,Bo Li,Wan-Lin Zhu,Xiao-Yun Yang,Chao-Hui Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i45.6397

IF: 5.374

2022-12-07

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.AIM: To investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.RESULTS: A total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).CONCLUSION: In this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Endoscopic Mucosal Resectionvsendoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumours: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

D. -D. Zhong,L. -M. Shao,J. -T. Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12069

IF: 3.4

2013-01-01

Colorectal Disease

Abstract:Aim Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used for the removal of rectal carcinoid tumours. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A systematic review was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR. Method The generation of inclusion criteria and analysis of data were based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. A systematic literature review was conducted using the following databases: Medline, Embase, SpringerLink, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. Only papers comparing treatment of rectal carcinoid tumours by EMR and by ESD were selected. The data collected included the patients' demographic information, interventions made, observed outcome and sources of bias. Results Four papers were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. ESD was more effective than EMR in complete resection (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.140.58; P=0.000). ESD was as safe as EMR [rate difference (RD) 0.01; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.05; P=0.675]. Recurrence rates did not differ significantly between the EMR and ESD groups (RD 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P=0.150). The duration of ESD was longer than EMR (standardized mean difference 1.73; 95% CI 2.73 to 0.74; P=0.001). Conclusion The study indicates that ESD is the better treatment for rectal carcinoid tumours.
Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Guanqun Chao,Shuo Zhang,Jianmin Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.027

IF: 2.417

2016-01-01

Journal of Surgical Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used for the removal of colorectal tumors. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESD and EMR for colorectal tumors. METHODS:For the years 1966 until October 2014, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles comparing the effectiveness and safety of ESD and EMR. STATA 11.0 and RevMan 5.0 were used for meta-analysis and publication bias. RESULTS:Seventeen articles were included in this meta-analysis. ESD was more effective than EMR in endoscopic complete resection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-5.70; Z = 2.86; P = 0.004) and pathologic complete resection rate (OR = 2.81; 95% CI, 1.39-5.70; Z = 2.86; P = 0.004). ESD resulted in a higher perforation rate (OR = 5.27; 95% CI, 2.75-10.08; Z = 5.01; P < 0.00001) and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30; Z = 5.04; P < 0.00001). The tumor size was larger in the ESD group (OR = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.54-4.63; Z = 3.92; P < 0.0001), and the procedure time was longer in the ESD group (OR = 21.39; 95% CI, 10.33-32.46; Z = 3.79; P = 0.0002). But bleeding rate did not differ significantly (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.81-2.20; Z = 1.14; P = 0.25). There was no publication bias analyzed by Begg test and Egger test. CONCLUSIONS:The study indicates that ESD is the better treatment for colorectal tumors for its higher complete resection rate despite the longer procedure time and higher perforation rate.
Endoscopic mucosal resection for challenging colonic mucosal lesions

Min Fu,Lili Zhao,Xiaohan Jiang,Min Wang,Yulin Gu,Li Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2233-0029

2024-05-30

Endoscopy

Abstract:We read the article by Uchima et al. that retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) procedures, which facilitated the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve [11]. During UEMR, the mucosa and submucosa "float" away from the deeper muscularis layer, eliminating the need for submucosal injection [22]. In this article, the author employed cap suction to induce pseudopolyps from flat colon lesions. Similarly to band ligation EMR, the formation of a pseudopolyp following cap suction enables the direct excision of the lesion [33]. However, the process of prefilling the colonic lumen with water appears to be a laborious and time-consuming procedure. Given the failure of snares to capture flat lesions, we suggest employing a hybrid EMR procedure that incorporates endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques for dissection of the circumferential mucosa of the lesion, followed by snare resection [44]. The hybrid EMR procedure not only facilitates effective lesion capture by anchoring the snare beneath the dissected mucosa, but also provides clear visualization of the lesion extent. The main advantage of UEMR is its technical ease; however, the en bloc resection rate and recurrence rate of UEMR for larger mucosal lesions are still not ideal compared with ESD [55]. We aspire to further exploration to promote the development of EMR. Article published online: 29 May 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Curative value of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for submucosally invasive colorectal cancer

Hiromu Fukuda,Yoji Takeuchi,Ayaka Shoji,Muneaki Miyake,Katsunori Matsueda,Takahiro Inoue,Kotaro Waki,Yusaku Shimamoto,Mitsuhiro Kono,Hiroyoshi Iwagami,Hiroko Nakahira,Noriko Matsuura,Satoki Shichijo,Akira Maekawa,Takashi Kanesaka,Sachiko Yamamoto,Koji Higashino,Noriya Uedo,Ryu Ishihara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15513

2021-04-11

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND AIM: Occasionally, colorectal tumors without characteristics of deep submucosal invasion are found to be invasive upon pathological evaluation after endoscopic resection (ER). Because the resection depth for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not been clarified, we evaluated the feasibility of UEMR for pathologically invasive colorectal cancer (pT1-CRC).METHODS: We retrospectively investigated data on the backgrounds and outcomes of patients with pT1-CRC who underwent UEMR between January 2014 and June 2019 at our institute. As a reference standard, the backgrounds and outcomes of pT1-CRCs that had undergone conventional EMR (CEMR) were also investigated.RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (median age, 68 years [range, 32-88 years]; 22 men [71%]) were treated with UEMR. Median lesion size was 17 mm (range, 6-50 mm). The endoscopic complete resection rate was 100%. The overall en bloc resection rate was 77%, and the VM0, HM0, and R0 resection rates were 81%, 58%, and 55%, respectively. In cases of pT1a (invasion <1000 μm)-CRC (n = 14), the en bloc, VM0, and R0 resection rates were 92%, 100%, and 71%, respectively. Seventeen patients (five with risk factors for lymph node metastasis and 12 without) were followed up, and no local recurrence and distant metastasis were observed during the follow-up period (median follow-up period, 18 months [range, 6-62 months]) after UEMR. The outcomes of UEMR seemed to be comparable with those of CEMR (n = 32).CONCLUSIONS: The VM0 rate of UEMR for pT1-CRC, especially for pT1a-CRC, without characteristics of deep submucosal invasion seems feasible.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiu-He Lv,Rong Luo,Qing Lu,Kai Deng,Jin-Lin Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2022.09.001

IF: 5.165

2022-10-03

Digestive and Liver Disease

Abstract:Background and Aims Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events. Results A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies. Conclusion Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Butros Fakhoury,Iyiad Alabdul Razzak,Rebecca Morin,Sandeep Krishnan,Syed Mahmood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2349641

Abstract:Background and aims: Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up. Results: A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32). Conclusion: Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.
Tip-in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 15- to 25-mm Colorectal Adenomas: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial (STAR Trial)

Kenichiro Imai,Kinichi Hotta,Sayo Ito,Yuichiro Yamaguchi,Yoshihiro Kishida,Yohei Yabuuchi,Masao Yoshida,Noboru Kawata,Masaki Tanaka,Naomi Kakushima,Kohei Takizawa,Hirotoshi Ishiwatari,Hiroyuki Matsubayashi,Keita Mori,Takuma Oishi,Hiroyuki Ono

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001320

2021-05-26

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: One-piece endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for lesions >15 mm is still unsatisfactory, and attempted 1-piece EMR for lesions >25 mm can increase perforation risk. Therefore, modifications to ensure 1-piece EMR of 15- to 25-mm lesions would be beneficial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Tip-in EMR, which anchors the snare tip within the submucosal layer, increases en bloc resection for 15- to 25-mm colorectal lesions compared with EMR.METHODS: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients with nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms of 15–25 mm in size were recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo Tip-in EMR or standard EMR, stratified by age, sex, tumor size category, and tumor location. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio of en bloc resection adjusted by location and size category. Adverse events and procedure time were also evaluated.RESULTS: We analyzed 41 lesions in the Tip-in EMR group and 41 lesions in the EMR group. En bloc resection was achieved in 37 (90.2%) patients undergoing Tip-in EMR and 30 (73.1%) who had EMR. The adjusted odds ratio of en bloc resection in Tip-in EMR vs EMR was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 1.06–13.6, P = 0.040). The Tip-in EMR and EMR groups did not differ significantly in adverse event rates (0% vs 4.8%) or median procedure times (7 vs 5 minutes).DISCUSSION: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, we found that Tip-in EMR significantly improved the en bloc resection rate for nonpolypoid lesions 15–25 mm in size, with no increase in adverse events or procedure time.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas

AlAmri Turki Abdullah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6ns1.4855

2022-03-18

International Journal of Health Sciences

Abstract:Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is currently the most used technique for resection of large distal colorectal polyps. However, in large lesions EMR can often only be performed in a piecemeal fashion resulting in relatively low radical (R0)-resection rates and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a newer procedure that is more difficult resulting in a longer procedural time, but is promising due to the high en-bloc resection rates and the very low recurrence rates. Objective: To investigate whether Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas. Methods: PubMed, Google scholar and Science direct were searched using the following keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection and Colorectal adenomas. The authors also screened references from the relevant literature, including all the identified studies and reviews, only the most recent or complete study was included. Documents in a language apart from English have been excluded as sources for interpretation was not found. Papers apart from main scientific studies had been excluded: documents unavailable as total written text, conversation, conference abstract papers and dissertations. Conclusion: EMR is safe and effective for treating colorectal adenomas.
Safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for 10–20 mm colorectal serrated lesions (SEA CLEAR study)

Kosuke Tanaka,Yohei Yabuuchi,Kenichiro Imai,Kazuya Hosotani,Shuko Morita,Kazunori Takada,Yoshihiro Kishida,Sayo Ito,Kinichi Hotta,Keita Mori,Tetsuro Inokuma,Hiroyuki Ono

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.08.040

IF: 10.396

2024-09-14

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:Background and Aims Colorectal serrated lesions (SLs) are precursors of colorectal carcinoma via the serrated neoplasia pathway. However, the success rate of endoscopic resection of large SLs is low. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for SLs sized 10–20 mm. Methods This two-center prospective observational study included patients with at least one SL sized 10–20 mm. We resected the SLs by UEMR and performed tattooing at the resection site. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed 12 months postoperatively to evaluate local recurrence. The primary outcome was the complete resection rate of UEMR, which was defined as en bloc resection with no serrated tissue in the four marginal biopsies and histologically negative margins. Results UEMR was performed for 65 SLs in 58 patients, with a median lesion size of 14 mm. The en bloc, R0 resection, and complete resection rates were 87.7% (57/65), 61.5% (40/65), and 60.0% (39/65), respectively. Adverse events included 1 (1.5%) immediate bleeding and 1 (1.5%) delayed perforation. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 50 patients with 57 scars, and the rates of identification for tattoos and scars were 94.7% (54/57) and 100% (57/57), respectively. The recurrence rate was 5.3% (3/57), and all three recurrent lesions were completely resected endoscopically. Conclusions This two-center prospective study demonstrated that UEMR for SLs sized 10–20 mm was comparable to previous conventional endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo,Gilmara Coelho Meine,Stefano Baraldo,Eduardo Cerchi Barbosa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2275-5349

2024-03-21

Endoscopy

Abstract:Background Cold resection of colorectal lesions is widely performed because of its safety and effectiveness; however, it remains uncertain whether adding submucosal injection could improve the efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) versus cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal lesions. Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was complete resection. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection, and adverse events (AEs). Prespecified subgroup analyses based on the size and morphology of the polyps were performed. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, with corresponding 95%CIs, for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics. Results 7 RCTs were included, comprising 1556 patients, with 2287 polyps analyzed. C-EMR and CSP had similar risk ratios for complete resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98–1.07), en bloc resection (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82–1.41), and AEs (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41–1.32). C-EMR had a longer procedure time (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5–69.7 seconds). In stratified subgroup analyses, the risk was not statistically different between C-EMR and CSP for complete resection in polyps<10 mm or ≥10 mm, or for complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs in the two groups among nonpedunculated polyps. Conclusions The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time. PROSPERO: CRD42023439605. Received: 13 September 2023 Accepted after revision: 12 February 2024 Article published online: 19 March 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Water immersion-assisted endoscopic en bloc resection for colorectal sessile tumors

Yong Cai,Hui Wang,Qixuan Bai,Jiufei Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2018.07.006

2018-01-01

Abstract:Objective\r\nTo compare the feasibility and efficacy of attempted underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) with conventional EMR for colorectal sessile or flat tumors.\r\n\r\n\r\nMethods\r\nA total of 120 colorectal tumors of 5 to 30 mm in size were removed using underwater EMR or conventional EMR. En bloc resection rates of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed.\r\n\r\n\r\nResults\r\nUnderwater EMR was performed on 53 colorectal sessile/flat tumors with the median size of 22 mm, and conventional EMR was performed on 67 tumors of the same median size. The overall en bloc resection rate of the underwater EMR group was higher than that of the conventional EMR group(81.1% VS 59.7%, P=0.012). The subgroup analysis showed en bloc resection rates of Paris 0-Ⅱa tumor (76.7% VS 50.0%, P=0.035) and those located at the inaccessible regions (100.0% VS 42.9%, P=0.004) were higher than that of conventional EMR. Neither postoperative bleeding nor perforation occurred in the two groups. Residual adenoma was found in 1 patient in underwater EMR group and 2 in the conventional EMR group, respectively(P=0.712).\r\n\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\nUnderwater EMR with prior submucosal injection appears superior to conventional EMR for the removal of colorectal sessile or flat Paris 0-Ⅰs/Ⅱa tumors of less than 3 cm in size in the rate of complete endoscopic resection and defect closure.\r\n\r\n\r\nKey words: \r\nIntestinal neoplasms; Endoscopes; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Water-immersion
Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Triple-anchoring Technique for Colonic Hybrid Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Case Series

Jun Hamanaka,Salvatore F Vadalà di Prampero,Sonia Solito,Milutin Bulajic,Alessandro Picci,Nikola Panic,Serena Battista,Federico Barbaro,Shin Maeda,Guido Costamagna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15403/jgld-4225

2022-03-19

Abstract:Background and aims: A hybrid technique may be a reasonable compromise to make endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) more reliable for lesions ≥ 20 mm and a good way of approaching to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel hybrid EMR technique, triple-anchoring EMR (T-EMR) for colorectal lesions 20-30 mm. Methods: Fifteen patients have been prospectively enrolled to T-EMR from December 2019 to April 2020 in two Endoscopy Units: Policlinico A. Gemelli, Rome, and University Hospital of Udine, Italy. Patients eligible for the study were ≥18 years old with superficial colorectal lesions 20-30 mm, morphologically liable to endoscopic treatment based on chromoendoscopy. The primary endpoint was assessment of the "en bloc" and the free resection margins (R0) rates. The secondary endpoints were resected specimen size, procedure time, complication rate, and recurrence rate at 6 months. Results: Among the 15 patients enrolled, 12 were males (80%), mean age 68.73±11.04 years. The mean size of the lesions was 24.93±2.89 mm. Mean procedure time was 22.13±4.31 min. T-EMR was performed en bloc in 14/15 patients (93.3%) with R0 in 13/15 patients (86.7%). No major intra-/peri-procedural or delayed complications occurred. At histological analysis, 13/15 lesions (86.7%) were adenomas, while 2 were early colorectal cancer. At a 6-month follow-up colonoscopy, only one patient (6.7%) had a recurrence of adenoma. Conclusions: T-EMR seems to be an effective and safe option to treat colorectal lesions between 20 and 30 mm, with a short procedure time and low costs.
Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal adenoma and tumors: Meta-analysis and system review

Nian Wang,Lei Shu,Song Liu,Lin Yang,Tao Bai,Zhaohong Shi,Xinghuang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291916

IF: 3.7

2023-09-28

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Aims This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating colorectal adenomas and tumors. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted using databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Parameters such as number of patients or lesions, histological diagnosis, lesion size, surgery time, en-bloc resection, R0 resection, severe postoperative complications, and local recurrence were extracted and pooled for analysis. Results A total of 12 retrospective studies involving 1289 patients and 1850 lesions were included in the analysis. EMR was found to have a shorter operation time by 53.6 minutes (95% CI: 51.3, 55.9, P<0.001) and fewer incidences of severe postoperative complications such as perforation and delayed bleeding (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.71, P<0.001). On the other hand, ESD had higher rates of en-bloc resection (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.30, P<0.001) and R0 resection (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.16, 0.65, P<0.001). Recurrence after EMR was found to be significantly higher than that after ESD surgery (OR = 5.88, 95%CI: 2.15, 16.07, P = 0.037). Conclusions The study suggests that the choice of surgical method may have a greater impact on recurrence compared to the pathological type, and that ESD may be more suitable for the treatment of malignant lesions despite its higher rates of severe postoperative complications and longer operation time.

multidisciplinary sciences
Comparison of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Chang Kyo Oh,Young Wook Cho,Jiyoon Jung,Hee Yeon Lee,Jin Bae Kim,Young-Seok Cho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71067-1

2024-09-02

Abstract:Incomplete resection rates vary among endoscopists performing cold snare polypectomy. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) is the technique of cold resection after submucosal injection to reduce incomplete resection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR for small colorectal polyps compared to hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR). Preplanned sample size required 70 polyps to CS-EMR group or HS-EMR group, respectively. Patients with polyps sized 6-9 mm were randomly allocated to either the CS-EMR or the HS-EMR group. The primary outcome was residual or recurrent adenoma (RAA) rate. A total of 70 and 68 polyps were resected using CS-EMR and HS-EMR, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population, the RAA rate was 0% in the CS-EMR group and 1.5% in the HS-EMR group (risk difference [RD], - 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 4.34 to 1.39). En bloc resection rate was 98.6% and 98.5% (RD, - 0.04; 95% CI - 4.12 to 4.02); the R0 resection rate was 55.7% and 82.4% (RD, - 27.80; 95% CI - 42.50 to - 13.10). The total procedure time was 172 s (IQR, 158-189) in the CS-EMR group and 186 s (IQR, 147-216) in the HS-EMR group (median difference, - 14; 95% CI - 32 to 2). Delayed bleeding was 2.9% vs 1.5% (RD, 1.37; 95% CI - 3.47 to 6.21) in both groups, respectively. CS-EMR was non-inferior to HS-EMR for the treatment of small colorectal polyps. CS-EMR can be considered one of the standard methods for the removal of colorectal polyps sized 6-9 mm.
[Cerebral hemodynamics in the intravenous administration of papaverine in cervical osteochondrosis].

L. V. Sobolev,V. A. Biriukov,A. Morozov

Abstract:
Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device or endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors: an analysis of 24 consecutive cases.

Keiko Niimi,Osamu Goto,Mitsuhiro Fujishiro,Shinya Kodashima,Satoshi Ono,Satoshi Mochizuki,Itsuko Asada-Hirayama,Maki Konno-Shimizu,Rie Mikami-Matsuda,Chihiro Minatsuki,Nobutake Yamamichi,Kazuhiko Koike

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01303.x

2012-01-01

Digestive Endoscopy

Abstract:Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has several advantages over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, including a higher en bloc resection rate and more accurate pathological estimation. However, ESD is a complex procedure that requires advanced endoscopic skills. The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device (EMR-L) compared to ESD for rectal carcinoid tumors. Methods: Between September 2003 and April 2011, 24 rectal carcinoid tumors in 24 patients treated by ESD or EMR-L were retrospectively analyzed. The indications for endoscopic treatment were node-negative rectal carcinoid tumors. We compared the therapeutic outcomes of the ESD group (n = 13) and the EMR-L group (n = 11). Results: Both groups had similar mean tumor sizes (ESD: 5.5 +/- 2.1 mm; EMR-L: 4.4 +/- 2.2 mm). The rates of en bloc and complete resection were, respectively, 100% and 92.3% for ESD, and 100% and 100% for EMR-L. Perforations did not occur in either group. Postoperative bleeding occurred in one EMR-L case, and it was endoscopically managed. However, there were no differences in therapeutic outcomes between the two groups. The mean procedure time was longer in the ESD group (28.8 +/- 16.2 min) than in the EMR-L group (17.4 +/- 4.4 min), without a significant difference. The mean hospitalization period was significantly shorter in the EMR-L group (1.8 +/- 3.1 day) than in the ESD group (6.2 +/- 2.1 day), and eight EMR-L cases were treated in an outpatient setting. Conclusions: EMR-L is a simple and effective procedure that compares favorably to ESD for small rectal carcinoid tumors.

Central side-effects of therapies based on CB1 cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists: focus on anxiety and depression.

Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an “Underwater” revolution?

Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm

Endoscopic Mucosal Resectionvsendoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumours: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Endoscopic mucosal resection for challenging colonic mucosal lesions

Curative value of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for submucosally invasive colorectal cancer

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tip-in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 15- to 25-mm Colorectal Adenomas: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial (STAR Trial)

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas

Safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for 10–20 mm colorectal serrated lesions (SEA CLEAR study)

Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Water immersion-assisted endoscopic en bloc resection for colorectal sessile tumors

Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Triple-anchoring Technique for Colonic Hybrid Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Case Series

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal adenoma and tumors: Meta-analysis and system review

Comparison of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

[Cerebral hemodynamics in the intravenous administration of papaverine in cervical osteochondrosis].

Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device or endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors: an analysis of 24 consecutive cases.