RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 An Updated Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Conventional to Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Polyps
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.05.17.22275225
DO 10.1101/2022.05.17.22275225
A1 Pamarthy, Rahul
A1 Ali, Hassam
A1 Bin Waqar, Syed Hamza
A1 Sarfraz, Shiza
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/21/2022.05.17.22275225.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors as this is a meta-analysis.