Abstract
Background Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). We intended to compare both techniques for colorectal polyp resection.
Methods A comprehensive search of several databases to identify studies published until November 2021 was performed. Inclusion criteria included studies comparing UEMR to CEMR in adult patients. The calculation was done by standard meta-analysis methodology, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2% statistics.
Results 1029 polyps were resected with the CEMR technique and 1078 polyps with UEMR. UEMR was associated with an increase in the rate of overall en-bloc resection (Odds ratios (OR) 1.77; 95% CI, 1.42-2.22; P < .0001; I2 = 20%). Subgroup analysis showed an increase in the rates of en-bloc resection in polyps greater than 20 mm (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.25; P = 0.004; I2 = 33%). There was a reduction in the recurrence rate of polyps (P < 0.0001) in the UEMR cohort. Post-procedural bleeding or risk of perforation was not increased in either group. Resection times were shorter in UEMR (Mean difference, -8.09; P = 0.006).
Conclusion UEMR is associated with lower recurrence rates and shorter procedure duration. In the future, UEMR may become the standard technique for colorectal polypectomy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Statements and Declarations
Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Competing Interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Data Availability The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics Approval This is a meta-analysis. The University and Medical Center IRB at East Carolina University Research Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.
Consent to participate: Not applicable
Consent for publication: Not applicable
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors as this is a meta-analysis.
