Tip-in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for en Bloc Resection in Large Colorectal Tumors

Ko, BM; Goong, HJ; Jeon, Seong Ran; Jung, Yong Wook; Hg, Kim; Hong, SJ; Kim, Jo; Lee, Myeong Soo

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1637221

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

“…Out of the 11 included studies, 10 studies 8,10–13,17–21 reported the en bloc rate for all patients with colorectal neoplasia who underwent Tip-in EMR. Lee et al 17 reported a 100% en bloc rate, which could not be estimated using STATA.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…com/JCG/A987). After applying these exclusion criteria, a total of 8 full articles 8,10-13,17-19 and 3 abstracts [20][21][22] involving 1244 lesions (684 in the Tip-in EMR group and 560 in the C-EMR group) were included in the metaanalysis. Five of the included studies 8,[11][12][13]18 were comparative studies between the Tip-in EMR and C-EMR groups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants' ages vary from 43.6 to 69.9 years, and gender distribution is relatively even, with male participation between 48.1% and 65%. In addition, 6 studies 10,17,[19][20][21][22] were incorporated into the analysis, of which some investigated the performance of Tip-in EMR in comparison to ESD, while others solely examined the Tip-in EMR technique. For the purpose of evaluating safety and effectiveness, only the outcomes pertinent to Tip-in EMR were taken into account from these studies, in accordance with established methodologies for single-arm metaanalyses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia

Niu

Bapaye

Zhang

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Early-stage gastrointestinal neoplasms are frequently treated with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR). However, C-EMR frequently leads to incomplete resection of large colorectal lesions. Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which was recently introduced for en bloc resection of colorectal neoplasms, minimizes slippage during the procedure. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared Tip-in EMR with conventional EMR. We searched several electronic databases and included studies that reported on the primary outcomes of en bloc resection rate and complete resection rate, as well as secondary outcomes such as procedure time and procedure-related complications (including perforation and delayed bleeding rate). We used a random effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data. We also conducted several sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. Results: A total of 11 studies involving 1244 lesions (684 in the Tip-in EMR group and 560 in C-EMR group) were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional EMR, Tip-in EMR significantly increased the en bloc resection rate in patients with colorectal neoplasia (OR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.09-6.23; P<0.00001; I 2=0%) and had a higher complete resection rate (OR=2.49; 95% CI, 1.65-3.76; P<0.0001; I 2=0%). However, the procedure time and rates of procedure-related complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Tip-in EMR outperformed C-EMR for both the en bloc and complete resection of colorectal lesions with similar rates of procedural complications.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia

Niu

Bapaye

Zhang

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our group has conducted a randomized phase II trial comparing EMR with and without this technique (UMIN000025754). We have noticed in recent articles that other foreign groups have described a "Tip-in" EMR [4,5]. Similarly, a paper by Pioche et al further highlighted the convenience and simplicity of this technique when used during the EMR procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

The ‘Anchoring-EMR’ technique has already been described and named the ‘Tip-in EMR’ technique

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tip-in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for en Bloc Resection in Large Colorectal Tumors

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia

The ‘Anchoring-EMR’ technique has already been described and named the ‘Tip-in EMR’ technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About