Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection: a new endoscopic method for resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumor grade 1 (carcinoid) ≤ 10 mm in diameter.

Background and study aims Rectal neuroendocrine tumors grade 1 (NET G1; carcinoid) ≤ 10 mm in diameter often extend into the submucosa, making their complete histological resection difficult using endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are commonly used to overcome these difficulties. We also previously reported that underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) could facilitate resection of rectal NET G1. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of UEMR for removing rectal NET G1 ≤ 10 mm in diameter. 6 consecutive patients with rectal NET G1 ≤ 10 mm in diameter underwent UEMR at our hospital. The rate of en bloc resection was 100 %, and the rate of R0 resection was 83 %. The median procedure time was 8 min (range 5 - 12 min). No perforations or delayed bleeding occurred in this study. In conclusion, UEMR allows the safe and reliable resection of rectal NET G1 ≤ 10 mm in diameter with comparable results to ESMR-L or ESD, including high en bloc and R0 resection rates with no increase in significant adverse events. A multicenter trial is required to confirm the validity of the present results.

Cold snare polypectomy reduced delayed postpolypectomy bleeding compared with conventional hot polypectomy: a propensity score-matching analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps has lower incidence of adverse events, especially delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB). However, few data are available on comparisons of the incidence of DPPB of CSP and hot polypectomy (HP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of DPPB after CSP and compare it with that of HP. A propensity score model was used as a secondary analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single municipal hospital. We identified 539 patients with colorectal polyps from 2 mm to 11 mm in size who underwent CSP (804 polyps in 330 patients) or HP (530 polyps in 209 patients) between July 2013 and June 2015. RESULTS: There were no cases of DPPB in the CSP group. Conversely, DPPB occurred in 4 patients (1.9 %) after HP, resulting in a significant difference between the CSP and HP groups (0.008 % vs 0 %, P  = 0.02). Propensity score-matching analysis created 402 matched pairs, yielding a significantly higher DPPB rate in the HP group than CSP group (0.02 % vs 0 %, P  = 0.04). However, significantly more patients in the CSP group had unclear horizontal margins that precluded assessment (83 vs 38 cases, P  < 0.001). The retrieval failure rate was significantly higher in the CSP group than in the HP group (3 % vs 0.7 %, P  = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DPPB was less frequent with CSP than HP, as selected by the propensity score-matching model. Our findings indicate that CSP is recommended polypectomy in daily clinical setting. However, special care should be taken during polyp retrieval and horizontal margin assessment, and these issues could be taken into account in follow-up after CSP.