2019
DOI: 10.1002/aid2.13145
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Safety and efficacy of tip‐in endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colorectal polyps: A single‐center experience in Taiwan

Abstract: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treating large colonic polyps. However, en bloc resection of large sessile lesions using conventional EMR is technically challenging and can generally be performed only in a piecemeal manner, resulting in low radical resection rates and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a more difficult and time‐consuming technique, is an alternative procedure with high en bloc resection rates and low recurrence rates. Therefore, we… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To enhance the efficacy and convenience of EMR without an increase in adverse events, modifications to the EMR technique to ensure en bloc resection of 15-to 25-mm lesions would be beneficial. Recently, Tip-in EMR, which includes the trick of anchoring the snare tip within the submucosal layer proximal to the lesion, has been introduced and shown to be effective (18)(19)(20). However, prospective, comparable randomized trials to assess the advantages of Tip-in EMR are lacking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To enhance the efficacy and convenience of EMR without an increase in adverse events, modifications to the EMR technique to ensure en bloc resection of 15-to 25-mm lesions would be beneficial. Recently, Tip-in EMR, which includes the trick of anchoring the snare tip within the submucosal layer proximal to the lesion, has been introduced and shown to be effective (18)(19)(20). However, prospective, comparable randomized trials to assess the advantages of Tip-in EMR are lacking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 2317 publications were identified in the initial search, of which 186 were excluded as duplicates and another 809 were deemed irrelevant (eFigure 1 in Supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JCG/A987). After applying these exclusion criteria, a total of 8 full articles 8,10–13,17–19 and 3 abstracts 20–22 involving 1244 lesions (684 in the Tip-in EMR group and 560 in the C-EMR group) were included in the meta-analysis. Five of the included studies 8,11–13,18 were comparative studies between the Tip-in EMR and C-EMR groups.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, en bloc resection rates were reported to be 89.5% for 15-19 mm lesions and 76.2% for 20-25 mm lesions [ 54 ]. In another study [ 55 ], 46 sessile polyps or laterally spreading tumors with a mean size of 20.4 mm were removed. En bloc resection was feasible in all cases, while only one patient had local recurrence.…”
Section: Tip-in Emrmentioning
confidence: 99%