Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal sessile polyps

Background Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a modified EMR technique using which en bloc resection of large colorectal sessile polyps can be performed; however, its usefulness for colorectal sessile polyps of > 20 mm has not been reported. This study examined treatment outcomes of tip...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2021-04, Vol.35 (4), p.1820-1826
Hauptverfasser: Sato, Yoshinori, Ozawa, Shun-ichiro, Yasuda, Hiroshi, Kato, Masaki, Kiyokawa, Hirofumi, Yamashita, Masaki, Matsuo, Yasumasa, Yamamoto, Hiroyuki, Itoh, Fumio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a modified EMR technique using which en bloc resection of large colorectal sessile polyps can be performed; however, its usefulness for colorectal sessile polyps of > 20 mm has not been reported. This study examined treatment outcomes of tip-in and conventional EMR for large colorectal sessile polyps of ≥ 20 mm. Methods This was a retrospective case–control study conducted at a single tertiary center in Japan. Subjects included those with large colorectal sessile polyps of ≥ 20 mm, excluding pedunculated-type polyps, who underwent endoscopic resection between January 2010 and January 2019. The primary outcome was endoscopic treatment outcomes when using tip-in and conventional EMR, and the secondary outcome was the local recurrence rate after endoscopic treatment. Results Forty-three colorectal lesions were treated using tip-in EMR and 83 using conventional EMR. Tip-in EMR had a significantly higher en bloc resection rate (90.7% vs. 69.8.%), and significantly shorter treatment duration (6.64 ± 0.64 min vs. 10.47 ± 0.81 min) than conventional EMR. However, for lesions > 30 mm, en bloc resection rate was 50.0% and 52.6% for tip-in and conventional EMR, respectively, indicating no significant difference. Perforation rates with tip-in and conventional EMR were 4.6% and 3.6%, respectively, indicating no significant difference. Local recurrence was examined in 80 cases who were followed up for > 6 months after endoscopic resection; recurrence rate was 0% and 7.0% in tip-in and conventional EMR cases, respectively, without significance difference. Conclusions Tip-in EMR showed high en-block resection rate, particularly in polyps of
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-020-07581-w