Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a rectal adenoma in the nondistensible rectum from severe fecal incontinence.

ABSTRACT: Video 1Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a rectal adenoma in nondistensible rectum from severe fecal incontinence.

SUBMITTER: Pattarajierapan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8186171 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a rectal adenoma in the nondistensible rectum from severe fecal incontinence.

Pattarajierapan Sukit S Khomvilai Supakij S

VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20210326 6

Video 1Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a rectal adenoma in nondistensible rectum from severe fecal incontinence. ...[more]

PMID: 34141972

Similar Datasets

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Project description:Background and study aimsThe resection strategy for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) < 10 mm is not uniform. We compared the utility of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) to endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) to resect rectal NETs.Patients and methodsPatients with rectal NET < 10 mm treated with UEMR or ESMR-L were included. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsThirty-two patients were divided into a UEMR group (n = 7) and an ESMR-L group (n = 25). Histopathological diagnosis of NET by biopsy was known before resection in 43% (3/7) in the UEMR group and 68% (17/25) in the ESMR-L group, (p = 0.379). UEMR was performed on an outpatient basis for all patients, and 92% of ESMR-L (23/25) were performed as inpatient procedures (p < 0.001). The procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group than in the ESMR-L group [median (IQR), min, 6 (5-8) vs. 12 (9-14), p = 0.002]. En bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 100% in both groups. Pathological evaluations were predominantly NET G1 in both groups (UEMR: 7/7, 100% and ESMR-L: 23/25, 92%). Two patients in the ESMR-L group developed delayed bleeding, controlled by endoscopic hemostasis. Device costs were significantly higher in the ESMR-L group than the UEMR group by approximately US$180 [median (IQR), $90.45 (83.64-108.41) vs. $274.73 (265.86-292.45), P < 0.001].ConclusionUEMR results in similar resection quality with shorter procedure time and lower costs compared to ESMR-L. We recommend UEMR for the resection of rectal NET < 10 mm.

| S-EPMC9063479 | biostudies-literature

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for a Terminal Ileum Adenoma Ressecao endoscopica subaquatica de adenoma ileal

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10987165 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of anal condyloma.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6004343 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (with videos): a single center retrospective study.

Project description:BackgroundUnderwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UMER) is a new method of endoscopic resection to completely remove the lesion without submucosal injection. But few attempts have been carried out for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rectal NETs).MethodsWe retrospectively investigated data on the tumor characteristics and outcomes of patients with ≤ 10 mm rectal NETs who underwent UEMR or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) from January 2019 to June 2021 in our institute.ResultsThe endoscopic resection rate was 100% in both UEMR and ESD groups. The histological complete resection rate of the UEMR group (95.5%) was lower than that of the ESD group (96.4%) with no significant difference. The average operation time, hospitalization time and operation cost of UEMR group were less than those of ESD group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention in the UEMR group was lower than that in the ESD group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed bleeding and perforation between the two groups. There was no local recurrence or distant metastasis in the two groups during the follow-up period.ConclusionsBoth the UEMR and ESD can effectively treat ≤ 10 mm rectal NETs with invasion depth confined to the mucosa and submucosa. UEMR is superior to ESD in operation time, hospitalization time, operation cost, postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention.

| S-EPMC9161598 | biostudies-literature

Feasibility and Efficacy of Gastric Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10931230 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an "Underwater" revolution?

Project description:Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newly developed technique for the removal of colorectal, duodenal, esophageal, gastric, ampullary, and small intestinal lesions. We performed a PubMed literature search for articles reporting UEMR outcomes for colorectal polyps. Four randomized controlled trials, nine non-randomized prospective trials, 16 retrospective studies, and 27 case reports were selected for assessment of the efficacy and safety of UEMR. We summarized the therapeutic outcomes of UEMR in each category according to the lesion characteristics [small size (<10 mm), intermediate size (10-19 mm), large size (≥20 mm), recurrent lesion, and rectal neuroendocrine tumor], and calculated the incidence of adverse events among the included articles. As the treatment outcomes for small polyps appeared similar between UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR), UEMR can be a standard procedure for small colorectal polyps suspicious for high-grade dysplasia to avoid incomplete removal of occult invasive cancer by cold snare polypectomy. As UEMR showed satisfactory outcomes for intermediate-size lesions and recurrent lesions after endoscopic resection, UEMR can be a standard procedure for these lesions. Regarding large lesions and rectal neuroendocrine tumors, comparisons of UEMR with current standard methods for them were lacking, and further investigations are warranted. Adverse events appeared comparable or less frequent for UEMR compared with CEMR but still existed. Therefore, careful implementation of this new technique in clinical practice is important for its widespread use.

| S-EPMC8828230 | biostudies-literature

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading rectal tumors using a multiband ligation endoscopic mucosal resection technique

Project description:Video Video 1 Tools and techniques video introducing and demonstrating the multiband ligation-assisted EMR technique to achieve wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large rectal laterally spreading tumors.

| S-EPMC8819476 | biostudies-literature

Modified underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for intermediate-sized sessile colorectal polyps

Project description:Introduction Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is effective for treating intermediate-sized colorectal polyps. However, it is sometimes difficult to obtain visibility in underwater conditions. Methods This prospective, observational, single-center study included consecutive patients with intermediate-sized (10–20 mm) sessile colorectal polyps. Modified UEMR method was used to initially snare the lesion without injection or water infusion. Thereafter, water was infused until the lesion was submerged, then it was resected using electrocautery. We also evaluated the rates of complete resection and procedure-related complications. Results Forty-two patients with 47 polyps were enrolled in the study. The median procedure time and fluid infusion were 71 s (42–607) and 50 mL (30–130), respectively. The rates of R0 resection and en bloc resection were 80.9 and 97.9%, respectively, with 100% technical success. R0 resection was observed in 42.9% of polyps sized ≥15 mm and 87.5% sized <15 mm (p < 0.01). Muscle entrapment was found in 71.4% of patients with polyps sized ≥15 mm and 10% <15 mm (p < 0.01). Immediate bleeding occurred in 12.8% of cases and was controlled using a snare tip or hemostatic forceps. Snare-tip ablation and hemostatic forceps ablation were performed in 27.7 and 6.4% of patients, respectively. No delayed bleeding, perforation, or any other complications were reported. Conclusion Modified UEMR can be used in cases in which securing visibility or performing the existing UEMR is challenging. Careful treatment is required when removing polyps >15 mm in size.

| S-EPMC10318795 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a follicular lymphoma: A case report.

Project description:IntroductionEndoscopic resection of a follicular lymphoma (FL) presenting as a gastric subepithelial tumor (SET), along with periodic follow up can be a treatment option because gastrointestinal FL cells tend to reside in the primary site, which may explain its indolent nature.Patient concernsA gastric lesion was found incidentally during a screening endoscopy in 73-year-old woman without any gastrointestinal symptom.DiagnosisThe patient was diagnosed with a grade I FL that was 1.4 cm large, at the greater curvature of lower-body.InterventionWe performed underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UW-EMR), and there was no serious complication, such as bleeding and perforation.OutcomesComplete en bloc resection was achieved with UW-EMR. Follow-up endoscopic biopsy after 3 months revealed no residual tumor on the resection site.ConclusionUW-EMR may be a simple and safe resection method for gastric FL without metastases, that measure >1 cm.

| S-EPMC8556042 | biostudies-literature

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Project description:Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

| S-EPMC8759939 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data