Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging strategy for the management of colorectal polyps. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for clinically significant (≥ 10 mm) colorectal polyps.

Methods

We performed a prospective dual-centre study of polyps ≥ 10 mm undergoing UEMR between June 2014 and March 2017. Outcomes measured comprised: (1) completeness of resection at index UEMR, (2) intraprocedural and 30-day complications, (3) rates and predictors of submucosal lift, en bloc resection, polyp/adenoma recurrence and (4) pain score. Endoscopy records were correlated with histology.

Results

85 patients underwent UEMR of 97 polyps. Resection was endoscopically complete at index UEMR in 97.9%. The median pain score was 0 (no pain). Submucosal lift was required in 29.9% and correlated with polyp size ≥ 30 mm (p = 0.03) and clip placement (p = 0.004). En bloc resection was achieved in 45.4%, and inversely correlated with polyp size ≥ 20 mm (p < 0.001). 30-day complications (4.1%) were minor and consisted of intraprocedural bleeding (n = 2) and delayed bleeding (n = 2). 60.8% attended endoscopy post-UEMR after a median interval of 6 months, with 20.3% polyp and 13.6% adenoma recurrence. Polyp recurrence was associated with piecemeal resection (p = 0.04), recurrent polyp (p = 0.02), female sex (p = 0.01) and poor access (p = 0.005). Predictors for adenoma recurrence included female gender (p = 0.01) and difficult access (p < 0.001). Recurrence rates did not differ with polyp size, site, morphology, dysplasia status, submucosal injection, patient age, or study centre.

Conclusions

UEMR is an effective, safe and well tolerated option for significant colorectal polyps. Piecemeal resection, recurrent polyp, female gender, and difficult access are predictors of post-UEMR polyp recurrence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cancer Research UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/common-cancers-compared, Accessed May 2017

  2. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366:687–696

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah J et al (2012) “Underwater” EMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 75(5):1086–1091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Binmoeller KF (2014) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection. J Interv Gastroenterol 4(4):113–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shenck RJ, Jahann DA, Patrie JT et al (2017) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5474-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hsieh YH, Binmoeller K, Leung FW (2016) Su1664 Underwater polypectomy: heat-sink effect in an experimental model. Gastrointest Endosc 83(5S):AB385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F et al (2015) Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev May26(5):CD009863

    Google Scholar 

  8. Amato A, Radaelli F, Spinzi G (2016) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection: the third way for en bloc resection of colonic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 4(4): 595–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang AY, Flynn MM, Patrie JT et al (2014) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal neoplasia is easily learned, efficacious, and safe. Surg Endosc 28(4):1348–1354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Curcio G, Granata A, Ligresti D et al (2015) Underwater colorectal EMR: remodeling endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 81(5):1238–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM et al (2013) Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 19(15):2355–2361

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gupta S, Miskovic D, Bhandari P et al (2013) A novel method for determining the difficulty of colonoscopic polypectomy. Frontline Gastroenterol 4:244–248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tate DJ, Klein A, Desomer L et al (2016) 391 Predicting adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection; the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool (SERT). Gastrointest Endosc 83(5 s):AB142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang X, Luo H, Xiang Y et al (2015) Left-colon water exchange preserves the benefits of whole colon water exchange at reduced cecal intubation time conferring significant advantage in diagnostic colonoscopy - a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 50(7):916 – 23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Binmoeller KF, Hamerski CM, Shah JN et al (2015) Attempted underwater en bloc resection for large (2–4 cm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 81(3):713–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Uedo N, Nemeth A, Johansson GW et al (2015) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions. Endoscopy 47:172–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burgess NG, Metz AJ, Williams SJ et al (2014) Risk factors for intraprocedural and clinically significant delayed bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:651–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hassan C, Repici A, Sharma P et al (2016) Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 65:806–820

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Albéniz E, Fraile M, Ibáñez B et al (2016) A scoring system to determine risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(8): 1140–1147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ponugoti PL, Rex DK (2016) Perforation during underwater EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 84(3):543–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Viel JF, Studer JM, Ottignon Y et al (2012) Predictors of colorectal polyp recurrence after the first polypectomy in private practice settings: a cohort study. PLoS ONE 7(12):e50990

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim HG, Thosani N, Banerjee S et al (2014) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for recurrences after previous piecemeal resection of colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 80(6):1094–1102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Ceglie A, Hassan C, Mangiavillano B et al (2016) Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 104:138–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T et al (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 47:829–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Burgess NG, Bahin FF, Bourke MJ (2015) Colonic polypectomy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 81:813–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y et al (2015) JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Digestive Endosc 27:417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Backes Y, Moons LMG, van Bergeijk JD et al (2016) Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas (MATILDA-trial): rationale and design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. BMC Gastroenterol 16(1):56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK

    Keith Siau

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK

    Keith Siau & Sauid Ishaq

  3. Department of Medicine, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, B5 5JU, UK

    Sauid Ishaq

  4. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy

    Sergio Cadoni

  5. Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization, Kure Medical Centre and Chugoku Cancer Centre, Kure, Japan

    Toshio Kuwai

  6. Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital, London, UK

    Abdulkani Yusuf & Noriko Suzuki

Authors
  1. Keith Siau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sauid Ishaq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sergio Cadoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Toshio Kuwai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdulkani Yusuf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noriko Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sauid Ishaq.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Prof. Sauid Ishaq and Drs. Keith Siau, Sergio Cadoni, Toshio Kuwai, Abdulkani Yusuf and Noriko Sukuzi have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siau, K., Ishaq, S., Cadoni, S. et al. Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc 32, 2656–2663 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5960-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5960-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation