Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2022; 13(04): 229-234
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756484
Review Article

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with the Two-Person Method

Akinori Sasaki 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu City, Chiba, Japan
,
Yuji Inada
2   Department of General Internal Medicine, Aso Iizuka Hospital, Izuka-City, Fukuoka, Japan
,
Eriko Yamaguchi
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu City, Chiba, Japan
,
Risa Okamoto
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu City, Chiba, Japan
,
Yasuaki Motomura
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu City, Chiba, Japan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is useful for removing colon polyps and is generally carried out by one doctor. It is occasionally difficult for colorectal polyps to be removed by EMR. In such cases, EMR is performed by the main doctor and an assistant doctor (the two-person method). However, the efficacy and safety of EMR in the two-person method remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the procedure time and incomplete resection rate (IRR) by the two- and single-person methods of EMR for polyp removal.

Materials and Methods Data from colorectal polyps resected by EMR were reviewed retrospectively and divided into two groups: general procedure/single- (n = 215) or two-person method (n = 56). The IRR, the procedure time, and the incidence of adverse events were compared between these methods.

Results A total of 152 patients and 271 lesions were included in this study. The mean procedure time for polypectomy was significantly shorter in the two-person method group than in the general procedure group (median time: 3.38 minutes vs. 6.56 minutes; p < 0.001). Additionally, the IRR for polyps was significantly lower in the two-person methods group than in the single-person methods group (2/56, 3.6% vs. 47/215, 21.9%; p = 0.001). None of the patients in the two-person method group presented with delayed bleeding.

Conclusions The two-person method for EMR was more effective than the single-person method. Therefore, this method may replace the conventional one-operator method in the future.

Keywords

endoscopic mucosal resection - two-person method - procedure time - incomplete resection rate

Authors' Contributions

AS conceptualized the study. AS, IY, EY, RO, and YM were involved in data curation. AS did formal analysis. AS was involved in methodology. AS and YM were involved in project administration. YM did supervision. AS and YM were involved in visualization. AS and YM wrote, reviewed, and edited the original draft.


Ethical Statement

The corresponding author, on behalf of all authors, jointly and severally, certifies that their institution has approved the protocol for any investigation involving humans or animals and that all experimentation was conducted in conformity with ethical and humane principles of research.




Publication History

Article published online:
15 December 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68 (06) 394-424
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay JF, Blanchi S, Dumas R, Filiberti R. EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60 (02) 234-241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Rosenberg N. Submucosal saline wheal as safety factor in fulguration or rectal and sigmoidal polypi. AMA Arch Surg 1955; 70 (01) 120-122
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Norton ID, Wang L, Levine SA. et al. Efficacy of colonic submucosal saline solution injection for the reduction of iatrogenic thermal injury. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56 (01) 95-99
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144 (01) 74-80.e1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D. et al; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020; 76 (02) 182-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Walsh RM, Ackroyd FW, Shellito PC. Endoscopic resection of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38 (03) 303-309
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM, Siersema PD. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46 (05) 388-402
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Nishizawa T, Suzuki H, Goto O, Ogata H, Kanai T, Yahagi N. Effect of prophylactic clipping in colorectal endoscopic resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. United European Gastroenterol J 2017; 5 (06) 859-867
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76 (02) 255-263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140 (07) 1909-1918
    Search in Google Scholar