IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0299931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xue Wang
  • Yue Wang
  • Xueyan Cao
  • Chunmei Zhang
  • Lin Miao

Abstract

Background and aim: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been an emerging substitute for conventional EMR (CEMR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficiency and safety of the two techniques for removing ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched up to February 2023 to identify eligible studies that compared the outcomes of UEMR and CEMR. This meta-analysis was conducted on the en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, adverse events rate and recurrence rate. Results: Nine studies involving 1,727 colorectal polyps were included: 881 were removed by UEMR, and 846 were removed by CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in en bloc resection rate [Odds ratio(OR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval(CI) 1.36–2.10, p

Suggested Citation

  • Xue Wang & Yue Wang & Xueyan Cao & Chunmei Zhang & Lin Miao, 2024. "Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299931
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299931
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299931&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0299931?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299931. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.