Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

摘要

Abstract Background and study aims?Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps has been reported to have good outcomes in recent studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of UEMR to conventional EMR (CEMR). Methods?A comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) was performed to identify studies that reported outcome of UEMR and CEMR for colorectal lesions. Outcomes assessed included incomplete resection, rate of recurrence, en bloc resection, adverse events (AEs) for UEMR and CEMR. Results?A total of 1,651 patients with 1,704 polyps were included from nine studies. There was a significantly lower rate of incomplete resection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19 (95?% confidence interval (CI), 0.05–0.78, P?=?0.02) and polyp recurrence (OR: 0.41, 95?% CI, 0.24–0.72, P?=?0.002) after UEMR. Compared to CEMR, rates overall complications (relative risk [RR]: 0.66 (95?% CI, 0.48–0.90) (P?=?0.008), and intra-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.59, 95?% CI, 0.41–0.84, P?=?0.004) were significantly lower with UEMR. The recurrence rate was also lower for large non-pedunculated polyps ≥?10?mm (OR 0.24, 95?% CI, 0.10–0.57, P?=?0.001) and ≥?20?mm (OR 0.14, 95?% CI, 0.02–0.72, P?=?0.01). The rates of en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were similar in both groups (P??0.05). Conclusions?In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that UEMR is more effective and safer than CEMR with lower rates of recurrence and AEs. UEMR use should be encouraged over CEMR.