Resection Of Large Colorectal Polyps Research Articles

A126 ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF REFERRALS AND ADJUDICATION FOR ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF LARGE COLORECTAL POLYPS AT A CANADIAN TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTRE

Abstract Background Management of large colorectal polyps is increasingly complex with the expansion of endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic full thickness resection. Adjudicating lesions in an effort to select the optimal resection method is hugely dependent on the information included within the referral. At our institution, a referral pathway based on photo and/or video documentation was created to facilitate the timely assessment and treatment of large colorectal polyps. To date, little is known about quality of referrals for endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps. Purpose Our study aimed to assess the adjudication process and quality of referrals for endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps at our advanced endoscopy referral center. Method We conducted a single-center prospective study of consecutive colorectal polyps referred for EMR from March 2021 to March 2022. Cases selected upfront for ESD were excluded. Referral information, intraprocedural data and histology was captured. No procedural and histology data were captured if EMR does not occur after adjudication. The outcome was defined as the frequency of adequate referrals. A referral was deemed adequate if it contained: sufficient photo or video documentation, description of any characteristics that increase the difficulty of endoscopic resection, accurate polyp localization/size estimate (with <1 cm discrepancy when compared to real-time endoscopic evaluation), and description of any endoscopic features of advanced dysplasia (AD), including HGD/IMCa, or submucosal invasion (SMI). Result(s) During the study period, 213 referrals were received for colorectal polyps and underwent adjudication for EMR: 211 underwent EMR; 2 underwent ESD despite being triaged for EMR. Only 5% (10/213) of referrals were deemed to be adequate. Only 34% (73/213) contained any photo or video documentation and only 13% (28/213) photos/videos were of sufficient quality for adjudication. Difficult location or polyp characteristics, if present, were accurately described in 86.7% of referrals (183/211) of referrals. The accurate polyp location was described 80.6% of the time (170/211). Polyp size was estimated in 50.2% (107/213) of referrals. Amongst referrals with size estimated, the size was accurate in 73.8% of the time (79/107). On histological evaluation, 35.1% (74/211) of polyps had AD or SMI. Amongst polyps with AD or SMI, 48.6% (36/74) had endoscopic appearance suggestive of HGD/IMCa/SMI but only 69.4% (25/36) of these polyps with high-risk endoscopic features were accurately predicted based on the referral information. Conclusion(s) Referrals for large colorectal polyps often lack important clinical information. This significantly impairs the ability to adjudicate polyps for triage and resection and may negatively impact patient outcomes. To improve referral adequacy and patient outcomes, we plan to evaluate the impact of polyp adjudication on EMR success. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Factors Predicting Malignant Occurrence and Polyp Recurrence after the Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: A Single Center Experience.

Background: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors contributing to the malignancy of colorectal polyps, as well as risk factors for recurrence after the successful endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps in a referral center. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed in patients diagnosed with large (≥20 mm diameter) colorectal polyps and treated in the period from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Hospital Medical Center Bezanijska Kosa, Belgrade, Serbia. Based on the endoscopic evaluation and classification of polyps, the following procedures were performed: en bloc resection, piecemeal resection or surgical treatment. Results: A total of 472 patients with large colorectal polyps were included in the study. The majority of the study population were male (62.9%), with a mean age of 65.7 ± 10.8 years. The majority of patients had one polyp (73.7%) less than 40 mm in size (74.6%) sessile morphology (46.4%), type IIA polyps (88.2%) or polyps localized in the descending colon (52.5%). The accessibility of the polyp was complicated in 17.4% of patients. En bloc resection was successfully performed in 61.0% of the patients, while the rate of piecemeal resection was 26.1%. Due to incomplete endoscopic resection, surgery was performed in 5.1% of the patients, while 7.8% of the patients were referred to surgery directly. Hematochezia (p = 0.001), type IIB polyps (p < 0.001) and complicated polyp accessibility (p = 0.002) were significant independent predictors of carcinoma presence in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Out of the 472 patients enrolled in the study, 364 were followed after endoscopic resection for colorectal polyp recurrence, which was observed in 30 patients (8.2%) during follow-up. Piecemeal resection (p = 0.048) and incomplete resection success (p = 0.013) were significant independent predictors of polyp recurrence in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Conclusions: Whenever an endoscopist encounters a complex colorectal lesion (i.e., a polyp with complicated accessibility), polyp size > 40 mm, the Laterally Spreading Tumor nongranular (LST-NG) morphological type, type IIB polyps or the presence of hematochezia, malignancy risk should be considered before making the decision to either resect, refer to an advanced endoscopist or perform surgery.

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUNDComplete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear. AIMTo analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODSMEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm. RESULTSSix thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo’ follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps). CONCLUSIONLRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a narrative review of the literature and best practices for management

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a narrative review of the literature and best practices for management

Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps. In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events. En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P= .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P= .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P= .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P= .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P= .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P< .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P= .611). UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

Factors associated with complete clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM : Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. METHODS : This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS : In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). CONCLUSIONS : Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Long-term outcomes and surveillance timing of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with histologically incomplete resection in endoscopic resection.

Histologically incomplete resection of large colorectal polyps is frequently encountered; however, the long-term outcomes or surveillance timing is not well known. We evaluated the incidence rate and time of recurrence of these cases during a long-term follow-up. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent endoscopic resection for large (≥10mm in size) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps at a tertiary academic hospital. Patients who had positive or indeterminate lateral margin in the histology and underwent completed surveillance colonoscopy first at 3-12months and finally at ≥2years after initial resection were included. Of 169 polyps (148 patients), 37 (21.9%) and 132 (78.1%) polyps had positive and indeterminate lateral margins, respectively. The median time intervals of the first and last surveillance from the initial resection were 6 (3-12) and 48 (24-114) months, respectively. The recurrence rate was 9.5% (16/169) during follow-up, and the mean time to recurrence was 31.9months. Thirteen (81.3%) polyps recurred after ≥12months. Most (14/16, 87.5%) recurrent polyps were benign, and 2 cases had advanced cancer. The only factor that was significantly associated with recurrence in the univariate and multivariate analyses was ≥3 piecemeal resections (odds ratio in the multivariate analysis, 16.92; 95% CI, 1.19-241.81; p = 0.037). During the long-term follow-up, the only factor that was significantly associated with recurrence was ≥3 piecemeal resections, and most recurrences occurred after ≥12months. Thus, a histologically incomplete resection with ≤2 piecemeal resections and no findings of suspected submucosal cancer may be considered as complete resection, and these patients may undergo first surveillance colonoscopy after 1-2years.

Prophylactic clips to reduce delayed polypectomy bleeding after resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Prophylactic clips to prevent delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic clips for preventing DPB by synthesizing the results of randomized trials. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of placing prophylactic clips to reduce DPB after resection of large (≥10mm) colorectal polyps. The primary outcome was DPB defined by GI bleeding after the conclusion of the colonoscopy. Eight studies (n= 3415) met the study criteria, all with a low risk of bias. The overall pooled incidence of DPB was 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-5.4%) in patients receiving endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps≥10mm. Placing prophylactic clips reduced DPB in patients receiving prophylactic clips (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; I2= 37.8%) compared with no clips with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 52 (95% CI, 31-163). In stratified analyses, placing clips was associated with reduced risks of DPB in patients with polyps≥20mm (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84; I2= 0.0%; NNT, 30), nonpedunculated morphology (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; I2= 0.0%; NNT, 39), and located proximal to the hepatic flexure (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78; I2= 54.8%; NNT, 25) compared with no clips. Prophylactic clips after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps≥10mm demonstrated a modest reduction in the risk of DPB. Larger reductions were observed in patients with polyps≥20mm, nonpedunculated morphology, or located proximal to the hepatic flexure.

Management of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: a retrospective multi-center cohort study

Background and study aims Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most frequent major adverse event after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Evidence-based guidelines for management of DB are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of patients with DB and to determine factors associated with hemostatic therapy. Patients and methods Patients with DB were identified by analyzing all consecutive EMR procedures for LNPCPs (≥ 2 cm) from one academic center (2012–2017) and seven regional hospitals (2015–2017). DB was defined as any postprocedural bleeding necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalization or reintervention. Outcome of DB was assessed for three clinical scenarios: continued bleeding (CB), spontaneous resolution without recurrent bleeding during 24 hours observation (SR), and recurrent bleeding (RB). Variables associated with hemostatic therapy were analyzed using logistic regression. Results DB occurred after 42/542 (7.7 %) EMR procedures and re-colonoscopy was performed in 30 patients (72 %). Re-colonoscopy and hemostatic therapy rates were 92 % and 75 % for CB (n = 24), 25 % and 8 % for SR (n = 12), and 83 % and 67 % for RB (n = 6), respectively. Frequent hematochezia (≥ hourly) was the only factor significantly associated with hemostatic therapy (RR 2.23, p = 0.01). Re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostatic therapy occurred in 3/22 (13.6 %) patients. Conclusion Ongoing or recurrent hematochezia is associated with a high rate of hemostatic therapy, warranting re-colonoscopy in these patients. A conservative approach is justified when bleeding spontaneously settles, and without recurrent hematochezia during 24 hours observation patients can be safely discharged without endoscopic re-examination.

Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy and COVID-19: Avoiding More Casualties

Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy and COVID-19: Avoiding More Casualties

Efficacy of cyanoacrylate in the prevention of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: a pilot study.

Postoperative bleeding is a common complication after endoscopic polypectomy, particularly after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated polyps, despite prophylactic clipping can reduce its occurrence. Cyanoacrylate glue has recently been proposed as a useful tool in reducing bleeding in surgery because of its adhesive and haemostatic properties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic application of a modified cyanoacrylate glue in the prevention of early or delayed post EMR bleeding. This is a pilot study. Inclusion criteria were patients between 18 and 75years old affected by sessile or flat colonic polyps larger than 2cm. Patients enrolled in the study were randomized in two groups: group A (EMR) and group B (EMR with the application of 0.3ml of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate + methacryloxysulfolane-Glubran 2®). Fifteen patients in both group A and B were enrolled. There were no intraoperative complications but haemostatic clipping was necessary in 3 patients in each group because of active bleeding. Delayed (after 24h) bleeding occurred in two patients (13.3%) in group A requiring hospital readmission and re-do endoscopy with apposition of haemostatic clips. No case of bleeding was recorded in group B (p = 0.48). The results of this pilot study suggest a potential role of local spray application of Glubran®2 in reducing post-procedural bleeding.

Effects of Blended (Yellow) vs Forced Coagulation (Blue) Currents on Adverse Events, Complete Resection, or Polyp Recurrence After Polypectomy in a Large Randomized Trial

There is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting that should be used for polyp resection. Some endoscopists use a type of blended current (yellow), whereas others prefer coagulation (blue). We performed a single-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether type of electrosurgical setting affects risk of adverse events or recurrence. Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger (n= 928) were randomly assigned, in a 2× 2 design, to groups that received clip closure or no clip closure of the resection defect (primary intervention) and then to either a blended current (Endocut Q) or coagulation current (forced coagulation) (Erbe Inc) (secondary intervention and focus of the study). The study was performed at multiple centers, from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were evaluated 30 days after the procedure (n= 919), and 675 patients underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months after the procedure. The primary outcome was any severe adverse event in a per patient analysis. Secondary outcomes were complete resection and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy in a per polyp analysis. Serious adverse events occurred in 7.2% of patients in the Endocut group and 7.9% of patients in the forced coagulation group, with no significant differences in the occurrence of types of events. There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of polyps that were completely removed (96% in the Endocut group vs 95% in the forced coagulation group) or the proportion of polyps found to have recurred at surveillance colonoscopy (17% and 17%, respectively). Procedural characteristics were comparable, except that 17% of patients in the Endocut group had immediate bleeding that required an intervention, compared with 11% in the forced coagulation group (P= .006). In a randomized trial to compare 2 commonly used electrosurgical settings for the resection of large colorectal polyps (Endocut vs forced coagulation), we found no difference in risk of serious adverse events, complete resection rate, or polyp recurrence. Electrosurgical settings can therefore be selected based on endoscopist expertise and preference. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01936948.

Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: An Observational Cohort Study

Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: An Observational Cohort Study

Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital.

Polyp assessment is multimodal and is vital prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. The size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score has been validated in specialist endoscopic institutions. this study investigated the ability of this score to predict incomplete endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps in a district general hospital. Consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal polyps at Worthing Hospital. Clinical, endoscopic and histological data were taken from prospective databases. The primary outcome of the study was to investigate the correlation of the SMSA score with incomplete endoscopic resection. Between February 2015 and August 2018, 114 patients underwent colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Of these, 67 (59%) were male. The median (interquartile range) age of the study population was 72 years (65-78 years). Some 17 lesions (15%) were pedunculated, 76 (67%) were sessile and 21 were (18%) flat; 84 polyps (77%) were located in the left colon/rectum, with the remainder in the right colon; 51 lesions (45%) were 20-30 mm, 27 (24%) were 30-40 mm and 36 (31%) were greater than 40 mm in diameter. When reclassified into the SMSA score, 9 of the polyps (8%) were level 2, 64 (56%) were level 3 and 41 (36%) were level 4. Incomplete resection was clinically diagnosed in 9/114 (8%). The SMSA score was positively correlated with incomplete endoscopic resection, but not with additional procedure usage, complications or advanced histology. Many patients with large polyps can be managed outside of specialist units. This study has validated that the SMSA score was associated with incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps in a district general hospital setting.

Clip Closure for Postpolypectomy Bleeding Prevention

After endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps, closing polypectomy defects with clips is thought to decrease severe bleeding risk, but

Carbon dioxide insufflation during endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps can reduce post‐procedure abdominal pain: A prospective, double‐blind, randomized controlled trial

Studies of the use of CO2 insufflation during endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps (LCPs) are lacking. We evaluated the effect of CO2 insufflation on pain after endoscopic resection of LCPs. In a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), 132 patients were randomly assigned to groups who underwent endoscopic resection with CO2 insufflation (CO2 group, n = 66) or air insufflation (air group, n = 66). The primary outcome was abdominal pain post-procedure (PP). The secondary outcomes were abdominal distension, rates of technical success, amounts of sedatives prescribed, use of analgesics, and adverse events. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The mean abdominal pain score was 12.3 in the CO2 group vs. 17.5 in the air group at 1 h PP (p = 0.047). Also, the proportion of patients without pain was significantly higher in the CO2 group at 1 h PP (p = 0.008). The pain score differed more in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group and long-time group. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. The results of this RCT demonstrate the superiority of CO2 insufflation for endoscopic resection of LCPs in terms of decreasing PP abdominal pain (KCT0001636).

Combining eastern and western practices for safe and effective endoscopic resection of large complex colorectal lesions.

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps is well established. However, significant differences in technique exist between eastern and western interventional endoscopists. We report the results of endoscopic resection of large complex colorectal lesions from a specialist unit that combines eastern and western techniques for assessment and resection. Endoscopic resections of colorectal lesions of at least 2 cm were included. Lesions were assessed using magnification chromoendoscopy supplemented by colonoscopic ultrasound in selected cases. A lesion-specific approach to resection with endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was used. Surveillance endoscopy was performed at 3 (SC1) and 12 (SC2) months. Four hundred and sixty-six large (≥20 mm) colorectal lesions (mean size 54.8 mm) were resected. Three hundread and fifty-six were resected using endoscopic mucosal resection and 110 by ESD or hybrid ESD. Fifty-one percent of lesions had been subjected to previous failed attempts at resection or heavy manipulation (≥6 biopsies). Nevertheless, endoscopic resection was deemed successful after an initial attempt in 98%. Recurrence occurred in 15% and could be treated with endoscopic resection in most. Only two patients required surgery for perforation. Nine patients had postprocedure bleeding; only two required endoscopic clips. Ninety-six percent of patients without invasive cancer were free from recurrence and had avoided surgery at last follow-up. Combining eastern and western practices for assessment and resection results in safe and effective organ-conserving treatment of complex colorectal lesions. Accurate assessment before and after resection using magnification chromoendoscopy and a lesion-specific approach to resection, incorporating ESD where appropriate, are important factors in achieving these results.

Sa1708 Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Large Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis

Sa1708 Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Large Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis

Optimizing Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps

Polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). The widespread adoption of CRC screening, more rigorous colonoscopy techniques, and advancements in endoscopic imaging have led to a greater awareness of complex polyps. Whereas surgery was once considered necessary for many large sessile or laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colorectum, the majority can now be removed endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treatment of colorectal LSLs. When performed by experts, EMR is highly effective and safe and can be completed in an outpatient or day-stay setting. Advancements in EMR effectiveness encompass a better understanding of the factors leading to post-EMR recurrence, protocols to recognize and treat it, and interventions that prevent recurrent or residual adenoma. New techniques for treating intra-procedural bleeding and a novel classification system to identify and inform proactive management of deep mural injury enhance the safety profile of EMR. However, each of these incremental advancements necessitates a meticulous and systematic approach that only committed and properly trained endoscopists can master. While alternative interventions such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offer potential advantages over EMR, the added procedural complexity, risks, and costs limit the relevance of ESD to a minority of lesions in the colorectum. This article reviews the expanding body of evidence supporting EMR as the first-line treatment of colorectal LSLs ≥20mm.

Underwater endoscopic resection: an alternative for difficult colorectal polyps.

Background and AimsUnderwater endoscopic resection can be an alternative to standard resection techniques to remove difficult colorectal polyps. This video shows 4 cases of underwater resection of large colorectal polyps.MethodsUnderwater resection consists of complete filling of the lumen through the accessory channel, using an infusion pump followed by snare resection of the polyp. We present 4 cases: a 3-cm pseudodepressed laterally spreading tumor (LST) in the sigmoid colon, a 6-cm pedunculated polyp with a thick stalk in the sigmoid, a 7-cm sessile lesion in the midrectum, and a 4-cm LST in the distal rectum close to the dentate line, resected with a monofilament snare or a multifilament snare.ResultsAll tumors were successfully resected without any adverse events or residual lesions during follow-up.ConclusionsThe underwater technique is a good alternative to standard resection techniques to remove difficult colorectal lesions.