Search

Objective: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon has been widely adopted, but there is limited data on the histopathological effects of the differing electrosurgical currents (ESCs) used. We used an in vivo porcine model to compare the tissue effects of ESCs for snare resection and adjuvant margin ablation techniques., Design: Standardised EMR was performed by a single endoscopist in 12 pigs. Two intersecting 15 mm snare resections were performed. Resections were randomised 1:1 using either a microprocessor-controlled current (MCC) or low-power coagulating current (LPCC). The lateral margins of each defect were treated with either argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC). Colons were surgically removed at 72 hours. Two specialist pathologists blinded to the intervention assessed the specimens., Results: 88 defects were analysed (median 7 per pig, median defect size 29×17 mm). For snare ESC effects, 156 tissue sections were assessed. LPCC was comparable to MCC for deep involvement of the colon wall. For margin ablation, 172 tissue sections were assessed. APC was comparable to STSC for deep involvement of the colon wall. Islands of preserved mucosa at the coagulated margin were more likely with APC compared with STSC (16% vs 5%, p=0.010)., Conclusion: For snare resection, MCC and LPCC did not produce significantly different tissue effects. The submucosal injectate may protect the underlying tissue, and technique may more strongly dictate the depth and extent of final injury. For margin ablation, APC was less uniform and complete compared with STSC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB received research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical and Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Study Aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established treatment for large (≥ 20 mm) laterally spreading lesions (LSLs). LSLs with complete or subtotal (> 90 %) circumferential extent (C-LSLs) are generally referred for surgery. Data on technique, efficacy, and safety of EMR for these lesions are absent. The aim of this study was to describe the technique and long-term outcomes of EMR for C-LSLs., Patients and Methods: Prospective observational study of consecutive patients referred for EMR of LSL at a tertiary care center over 63 months to April 2015. Amongst 979 patients with LSL, 12 patients with C-LSL were seen., Results: All lesions were tubulovillous adenomas with granular 0 - IIa + Is morphology. Median longitudinal extent was 95 mm (range 60 - 160), 58 % were located in the rectum, and 3 lesions (25 %) had complete circumferential involvement. EMR technical success was 100 %. There were no major adverse events. Symptomatic stricturing occurred in 2 cases (17 %) and was treated with endoscopic balloon dilation (median 4 sessions). Median follow up is 13 months. Minor residual adenoma was found in 7 (58 %) at first surveillance colonoscopy and was treated with snare excision. A total of 10 patients have completed a second surveillance colonoscopy with minor residual adenoma found in only 1 case. No patient required surgery or developed cancer in long-term follow-up., Conclusions: Endoscopic resection of C-LSL is feasible and safe. Minor residual adenoma is common but endoscopically treatable with long-term cure. Symptomatic stricturing amenable to balloon dilation may occur. Empiric surgical referral for C-LSL based on extensive circumferential involvement may be avoided.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01368289., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background & Aims: Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of large sessile colonic polyps is a safe and cost-effective outpatient treatment. Bleeding is the main complication. Few studies have examined risk factors for bleeding during the procedure (intraprocedural bleeding [IPB]) or after it (clinically significant post-endoscopic bleeding [CSPEB]). We investigated factors associated with IPB and CSPEB in a large prospective study., Methods: We analyzed data from WF-EMRs of sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm in size (mean size, 35.5 mm), which were performed on 1172 patients (mean age, 67.8 years) from June 2008-March 2013 at 7 tertiary hospitals as part of the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection Study. Data were collected on characteristics of patients and lesions, along with outcomes of procedures and clinical and histologic analyses. Independent predictors of IPB and CSPEB were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis., Results: Of the patients studied, 133 (11.3%) had IPB. Independent predictors included increasing lesion size (odds ratio, 1.24/10 mm; P < .001), Paris endoscopic classification of 0-IIa + Is (odds ratio, 2.12; P = .004), tubulovillous or villous histology (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .007), and study institutions that performed the procedure on fewer than 75 patients (odds ratio, 3.78; P < .001). All IPB was successfully controlled endoscopically. IPB prolonged procedures and was associated with early recurrence (relative risk, 1.68; P = .011). Seventy-three patients (6.2%) had CSPEB. On multivariable analysis, CSPEB was associated with proximal colon location (odds ratio, 3.72; P < .001), use of an electrosurgical current not controlled by a microprocessor (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .038), and IPB (odds ratio, 2.16; P = .016). Lesion size and comorbidities did not predict CSPEB., Conclusions: In a prospective study of patients undergoing WF-EMR of large sessile colonic polyps, IPB is associated with larger lesions, lesion histology, and Paris endoscopic classification of type 0-IIa + Is. IPB prolongs the duration of the procedure, is a marker for recurrence, and is associated with CSPEB. CSPEB occurs most frequently in the proximal colon and less when current is controlled by a microprocessor., (Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic resection (ER) for large colonic lesions is a safe and effective outpatient treatment. Postprocedural pain creates concern for perforation and often results in postprocedure admission (PPA). Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation has been shown to reduce pain scores after routine colonoscopy, but an influence on more critical outcomes such as PPA has not been shown., Objective: To assess the outcomes of patients undergoing ER for large colonic lesions, comparing those having air versus those having CO(2) insufflation., Design: Prospective, observational, cohort study., Setting: Academic, high-volume, tertiary-care referral center., Patients: Consecutive patients referred for ER of sessile colorectal polyps ≥20 mm., Intervention: ER with air or CO(2)., Main Outcome Measurements: Rates of PPA, technical outcomes, complication rates., Results: ER was performed on 575 lesions ≥20 mm, 228 with CO(2) insufflation. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm. Lesion and patient characteristics were similar in both groups. The use of CO(2) was associated with a 62% decrease in the PPA rate from 8.9% to 3.4% (P = .01). This was mainly because of an 82% decrease in PPA for pain from 5.7% to 1.0% (P = .006). There were no significant difference in the rates of complications. Multiple logistical regression was performed. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of PPA (OR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.95; P = .04) and PPA for pain (OR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.78; P = .02) in the CO(2) group remained significant., Limitations: Single center, nonrandomized study., Conclusion: CO(2) insufflation significantly reduces PPA after ER of large colonic lesions, primarily because of reduced PPA for pain. CO(2) insufflation should be routinely used during ER of large colonic lesions., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims Clinically significant postendoscopic mucosal resection bleeding (CSPEB) is the most frequent significant complication of wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of advanced mucosal neoplasia (sessile or laterally spreading colorectal lesions > 20 mm). CSPEB requires resource-intensive management and there is no strategy for preventing it. We investigated whether prophylactic endoscopic coagulation (PEC) reduces the incidence of CSPEB. Methods We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial of 347 patients (mean age, 67.1 y; 55.3% with proximal colonic lesions) undergoing WF-EMR for advanced mucosal neoplasia at 3 Australian tertiary referral centers. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to groups receiving PEC (n = 172) or no additional therapy (n = 175, controls). PEC was performed with coagulating forceps, applying low-power coagulation to nonbleeding vessels in the resection defect. CSPEB was defined as bleeding requiring admission to the hospital. The primary end point was the proportion of CSPEB. Results Patients in each group were similar at baseline. CSPEB occurred in 9 patients receiving PEC (5.2%) and 14 controls (8.0%; P = .30). CSPEB was associated significantly with proximal colonic location on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 3.08; P = .03). Compared with the proximal colon, there was a significantly greater number (3.8 vs 2.1; P = .002) and mean size (0.5–1 vs 0.3–0.5 mm; P = .04) of visible vessels in the distal colon. Conclusions PEC does not significantly decrease the incidence of CSPEB after WF-EMR. There were significantly more and larger vessels in the WF-EMR mucosal defect of distal colonic lesions, yet CSPEB was more frequent with proximal colonic lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01368731 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]