ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology
Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Is a Technique with a Short Learning Curve: A Multicentric Prospective Study.
Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and Aims: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) emerged as a promising alternative to conventional EMR (C-EMR) for resecting large colorectal polyps. There is a lack of studies focusing on its learning curve. Thus, we aimed to determine the learning curve of U-EMR in endoscopists without prior experience in U-EMR. Methods: Four endoscopists from 4 different centers performed U-EMR after standardized online training. Patients with non-pedunculated colorectal lesions sized 10-30 mm were enrolled between November 2023 and June 2024. The primary outcome was to evaluate technical success, en bloc resection rates, procedural time, and adverse events before and after 10 and 15 procedures, to assess whether this threshold is sufficient for proficiency. Results: Overall, 84 lesions were included, median size of 17 mm [10-35 mm]. Mean procedural time was 3.99 min, with an average of 1.21 piecemeal fragments per lesion, and en bloc resection rate was 85%, with all lesions completely resected. When comparing learning phases, en bloc resection rates were 83.3% in the first period (first 15 lesions) and 87.5% thereafter, with a slight reduction in mean procedural time (4.13 vs. 3.77 min). There were no significant differences in procedural time or en bloc resection when comparing results after 10 or 15 procedures, no observed improvements after the 16th procedure. No perforations, delayed bleeding, or hospital admissions occurred. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 3.6% of cases and was managed conservatively. Prophylactic clip closure was performed in 34.5% of cases, primarily in the right colon. Conclusion: U-EMR is safe, efficient, and easily adopted, with proficiency that may be achieved after a small number of procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.