LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video).

Photo by basilsamuellade from unsplash

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases colonoscopy efficacy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of… Click to show full abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases colonoscopy efficacy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR. METHODS In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsies around resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection. RESULTS Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, p=0.91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, p<0.0001; ≥20 mm 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions through avoidance of submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve colonoscopy cost-effectiveness by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality.

Keywords: randomized controlled; resection rates; nondiminutive nonpedunculated; colorectal lesions; incomplete resection; resection

Journal Title: Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.