Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD · 2026
Clinical Outcomes of Underwater versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in the Removal of Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yao Yiheng, Chi Jinfeng, Wang Zhihan, Shen Xingjie, Zhu Jingyu, Ma Jiaxing, Liu Liang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) are the primary techniques for the removal of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis on the safety and efficacy of the two procedures, U-EMR and C-EMR.
METHODS: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing U-EMR and C-EMR for the resection of sessile or flat colorectal polyps. Standard meta-analytic methods were employed using random-effects, and I² % was used to assess heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. Regarding the en bloc resection rate, U-EMR was superior to C-EMR [Risk Ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.24]. Subgroup analysis showed that the higher en bloc resection rate of U-EMR was mainly manifested in 10-20 mm polyps (RR=1.16, 95%CI: 1.07-1.25). In the analysis of R0 resection rate, U-EMR outperformed C-EMR (RR=1.28, 95%CI: 1.02-1.61). In terms of the incidence of adverse events and recurrence rate, U-EMR showed a trend lower than C-EMR in terms of intraoperative bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95%CI: 0.45-1.54), delayed bleeding (OR=0.61, 95%CI: 0.28-1.32), and recurrence rate (OR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.24-1.18), but none of them reached statistical significance. For procedure time, U-EMR demonstrated shorter resection times than C-EMR [mean difference (MD) -3.05 minutes, 95%CI: -5.17 to -0.92).
CONCLUSIONS: For sessile or flat colorectal polyps measuring ≥10 mm in diameter, U-EMR demonstrates superior efficacy compared with C-EMR.
METHODS: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing U-EMR and C-EMR for the resection of sessile or flat colorectal polyps. Standard meta-analytic methods were employed using random-effects, and I² % was used to assess heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. Regarding the en bloc resection rate, U-EMR was superior to C-EMR [Risk Ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.24]. Subgroup analysis showed that the higher en bloc resection rate of U-EMR was mainly manifested in 10-20 mm polyps (RR=1.16, 95%CI: 1.07-1.25). In the analysis of R0 resection rate, U-EMR outperformed C-EMR (RR=1.28, 95%CI: 1.02-1.61). In terms of the incidence of adverse events and recurrence rate, U-EMR showed a trend lower than C-EMR in terms of intraoperative bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95%CI: 0.45-1.54), delayed bleeding (OR=0.61, 95%CI: 0.28-1.32), and recurrence rate (OR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.24-1.18), but none of them reached statistical significance. For procedure time, U-EMR demonstrated shorter resection times than C-EMR [mean difference (MD) -3.05 minutes, 95%CI: -5.17 to -0.92).
CONCLUSIONS: For sessile or flat colorectal polyps measuring ≥10 mm in diameter, U-EMR demonstrates superior efficacy compared with C-EMR.