医学
随机对照试验
不利影响
外科
结肠镜检查
临床试验
内科学
结直肠癌
癌症
作者
Joaquín Rodríguez Sánchez,Marco Antonio Álvarez,María Pellisé,David Coto-Ugarte,Hugo Uchima,Javier Aranda-Hernández,José Santiago García,José Carlos Marín-Gabriel,F. Pons,Óscar Nogales,Ramiro Carreño Macian,Alberto Herreros de Tejada,Luis Hernández,G. Oliver Patrón,Manuel Rodríguez-Téllez,Eduardo Redondo‐Cerezo,Mónica Sánchez Alonso,María Daca-Álvarez,Eduardo Valdivielso-Cortazar,Alberto Álvarez Delgado
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.013
摘要
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) to treat large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCL). In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCL.We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n=149) and CEMR (n=162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least one follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 and adverse events, among others.There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate [9.5% UEMR vs. 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference -2.2% (CI 95%: -9.4% to 4.9%)]. However, considering the polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR [3.4% UEMR vs. 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference -9.7% (CI 95%: -19.4% to 0%)]. The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, both techniques were equally safe.UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR of LNPCL and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20-30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI