Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Section of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Sep;94(3):471-482.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.034. Epub 2020 Dec 29.
Major limitations with conventional EMR (C-EMR) include high rates of polyp recurrence and low en-bloc resection rates, especially for lesions >20 mm in size. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternate technique for en-bloc resection of larger lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 techniques.
Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that compared outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal lesions. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) of successful R0, en-bloc, and piecemeal resection of colorectal lesions. We compared the rates of polyp recurrence at follow-up, diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, and adverse events with the 2 techniques.
Eleven studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1851 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 1071 lesions were removed using U-EMR, and 1049 lesions were removed using C-EMR. Although U-EMR had an overall superior en-bloc resection rate compared with C-EMR (OR, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3.5; P = .04), both techniques were comparable in terms of polyps >20 mm in size (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.1; P = .75), R0 resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .14), piecemeal resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .13), and diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; P = .82). There were lower rates of polyp recurrence (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01) and incomplete resection (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5; P = .001) with U-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.
Our results support the use of U-EMR over C-EMR for successful resection of colorectal lesions. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of U-EMR for resecting polyps >20 mm in size.
传统电子病历(C-EMR)的主要局限性包括息肉复发率高和整块切除率低,尤其是对于>20mm 的病变。水下 EMR(U-EMR)已成为一种用于较大病变整块切除的替代技术。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了这两种技术的疗效和安全性。
通过 2020 年 6 月前对多个数据库进行搜索,以比较 U-EMR 和 C-EMR 治疗结直肠病变的结果。采用荟萃分析确定结直肠病变整块、部分切除和成功 R0 切除的合并优势比(OR)。我们比较了两种技术在随访时息肉复发率、结直肠癌诊断准确性和不良事件的发生率。
最终分析纳入了 11 项研究,其中包括 4 项随机对照试验(RCT)共 1851 例患者。共使用 U-EMR 切除 1071 个病变,使用 C-EMR 切除 1049 个病变。尽管 U-EMR 的整块切除率总体优于 C-EMR(OR,1.9;95%置信区间[CI],1-3.5;P=.04),但对于>20mm 的息肉,两种技术的效果相当(OR,0.8;95%CI,0.3-2.1;P=.75),R0 切除(OR,3.1;95%CI,0.74-12.6;P=.14),部分切除(OR,3.1;95%CI,0.74-12.6;P=.13)和结直肠癌的诊断准确性(OR,1.1;95%CI,0.6-1.8;P=.82)。U-EMR 组的息肉复发率(OR,0.3;95%CI,0.1-0.8;P=.01)和不完全切除率(OR,0.4;95%CI,0.2-0.5;P=.001)较低。两种技术的切除时间和安全性相似。
我们的结果支持 U-EMR 用于成功切除结直肠病变,优于 C-EMR。需要进一步的随机对照试验来评估 U-EMR 切除>20mm 息肉的疗效。