このエントリーをはてなブックマークに追加
ID 67952
FullText URL
Author
Toyosawa, Junki Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Yamasaki, Yasushi Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital ORCID Kaken ID publons
Aoyama, Yuki Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Takei, Kensuke Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Igawa, Shoko Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Inokuchi, Toshihiro Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Kinugasa, Hideaki Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital ORCID Kaken ID
Takahara, Masahiro Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Hiraoka, Sakiko Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital Kaken ID publons researchmap
Okada, Hiroyuki Department of Internal Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Society Himeji Hospital Kaken ID publons researchmap
Otsuka, Motoyuki Department of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital
Abstract
Introduction: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) have been developed recently, in addition to conventional methods, but adverse events of each method have not been fully clarified. We compared the outcomes of each method for the appropriate choice. Methods: Patients who underwent CSP, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)/hot snare polypectomy (HSP), or UEMR for small and intermediate-sized colorectal polyps between April 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively examined. The rate of adverse events and recurrences due to each method were determined as the main outcomes. Clinical factors related to adverse events were examined. Results: A total of 1,025 patients with 3,163 polyps underwent polypectomy using any of the methods. CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR were performed for 704 (22.2%), 2,145 (67.8%), and 314 polyps (9.9%), and the median size for each method was 4, 6, and 7 mm, respectively. Delayed bleeding for CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0%, 0.2%, and 0.6% (p = 0.15), and perforation was 0%, 0.1%, and 0%, respectively (p = 0.62). Recurrence after CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0.3%, 0.09%, and 1.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). Recurrence for UEMR was significantly higher in the early stage of procedure introduction (p = 0.015). Oral anticoagulants were the risk factor for delayed bleeding (p < 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: There was no significant difference regarding adverse events among each method for small and intermediate-sized polyps, although the recurrence rate after UEMR was higher than other methods.
Keywords
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Cold snare polypectomy
Note
This is the accepted manuscript version of an article published by Karger Publishers in [Junki Toyosawa, Yasushi Yamasaki, Yuki Aoyama, Kensuke Takei, Shoko Igawa, Toshihiro Inokuchi, Hideaki Kinugasa, Masahiro Takahara, Sakiko Hiraoka, Hiroyuki Okada, Motoyuki Otsuka; Adverse Events after Different Endoscopic Resection Procedures for Small and Intermediate-Sized Colorectal Polyps. Dig Dis 2 December 2024; 42 (6): 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1159/000540365] and available on karger.com/Article/FullText/doi.
Published Date
2024-08-09
Publication Title
Digestive Diseases
Volume
volume42
Issue
issue6
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Start Page
529
End Page
537
ISSN
0257-2753
NCID
AA10725752
Content Type
Journal Article
language
English
OAI-PMH Set
岡山大学
Copyright Holders
© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel
File Version
author
PubMed ID
DOI
Web of Science KeyUT
Related Url
isVersionOf https://doi.org/10.1159/000540365
Citation
Junki Toyosawa, Yasushi Yamasaki, Yuki Aoyama, Kensuke Takei, Shoko Igawa, Toshihiro Inokuchi, Hideaki Kinugasa, Masahiro Takahara, Sakiko Hiraoka, Hiroyuki Okada, Motoyuki Otsuka; Adverse Events after Different Endoscopic Resection Procedures for Small and Intermediate-Sized Colorectal Polyps. Dig Dis 2 December 2024; 42 (6): 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1159/000540365