The American journal of gastroenterology · 2026
Resection Depth of Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Intermediate-Sized Colorectal Tumors.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Tamaru Yuzuru, Miyakawa Akihiro, Shimura Haruhisa, Yamada Takuya, Maehara Kosuke, Sumida Yorinobu, Kato Naohiro, Sugata Shuhei, Hamada Takuro, Mizumoto Takeshi, Kusunoki Ryusaku, Hatakeyama Tsuyoshi, Yoshida Shigeto, Ishaq Sauid, Kuwai Toshio
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) does not involve submucosal injection. Its ability to achieve sufficient resection depth comparable with that of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) remains unclear. This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare UEMR and CEMR, with a specific focus on resection depth.
METHODS: In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial at 4 Japanese institutions, patients with colorectal tumors measuring 10-20 mm were randomly assigned to the UEMR or CEMR group. The primary outcome was resection depth analyzed per protocol, with a noninferiority margin of 400 μm.
RESULTS: In total, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the UEMR (n = 109) or CEMR (n = 108) group. The mean resection depths were 1,688.9 ± 1,510.0 μm for UEMR and 1,432.3 ± 1,294.2 μm for CEMR, with a mean difference of 256.6 μm (95% confidence interval: -119.9-633.1 μm; P = 0.18). Subgroup analyses revealed that UEMR achieved significantly greater resection depths in the cecum and ascending colon (1,822.4 ± 1,469.7 μm vs 1,096.5 ± 1,007.6 μm; P = 0.01) and in lesions with superficial morphology (1,238.7 ± 862.2 μm vs 731.6 ± 376.1 μm; P < 0.01) than CEMR. Nonexpert operators also achieved deeper resections with UEMR than with CEMR (1,786.6 ± 1,471.6 μm vs 1,192.4 ± 1,074.7 μm; P = 0.07).
DISCUSSION: UEMR achieved a resection depth comparable with that of CEMR. Given its consistent negative horizontal margins, UEMR may become the gold standard for resecting intermediate-sized colorectal tumors.
METHODS: In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial at 4 Japanese institutions, patients with colorectal tumors measuring 10-20 mm were randomly assigned to the UEMR or CEMR group. The primary outcome was resection depth analyzed per protocol, with a noninferiority margin of 400 μm.
RESULTS: In total, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the UEMR (n = 109) or CEMR (n = 108) group. The mean resection depths were 1,688.9 ± 1,510.0 μm for UEMR and 1,432.3 ± 1,294.2 μm for CEMR, with a mean difference of 256.6 μm (95% confidence interval: -119.9-633.1 μm; P = 0.18). Subgroup analyses revealed that UEMR achieved significantly greater resection depths in the cecum and ascending colon (1,822.4 ± 1,469.7 μm vs 1,096.5 ± 1,007.6 μm; P = 0.01) and in lesions with superficial morphology (1,238.7 ± 862.2 μm vs 731.6 ± 376.1 μm; P < 0.01) than CEMR. Nonexpert operators also achieved deeper resections with UEMR than with CEMR (1,786.6 ± 1,471.6 μm vs 1,192.4 ± 1,074.7 μm; P = 0.07).
DISCUSSION: UEMR achieved a resection depth comparable with that of CEMR. Given its consistent negative horizontal margins, UEMR may become the gold standard for resecting intermediate-sized colorectal tumors.