Endoscopic mucosal resection recurrence rate for colorectal lesions

Arleen M. Ortiz, Bhargavi Patham, Marc J. Zuckerman, Mohamed O. Othman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the polyp recurrence rate after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and factors contributing to increased recurrence. Methods: MEDLINE (from 1966 to 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Scopus database were searched in December 2013. Studies evaluating the polyp recurrence rate after colonic EMR were included. All of the articles were assigned a quality score. Standard forms were used to extract data regarding study design, outcome measures, and adverse effects by two independent reviewers. We performed a meta-analysis with a random effects model. Separate analyses were performed for each main outcome by using odds ratio (OR) and risk difference. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 measure of inconsistency. Results: For the recurrence rate of colorectal lesions, 30 articles were included, with a total of 3404 patients. The polyp recurrence rate after EMR was 13.1%. Piecemeal resection was associated with a higher recurrence rate compared with en bloc resection (OR 4.39, 95% confidence interval 2.05-9.41; 14 studies). The use of argon plasma coagulation did not affect the polyp recurrence rate (OR 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.39-3.88). Significant heterogeneity was present among studies. Conclusions: The recurrence rate of colorectal polyps after EMR is reasonably low; however, piecemeal resection was associated with a higher recurrence rate than en bloc resection after EMR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)615-621
Number of pages7
JournalSouthern Medical Journal
Volume107
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Keywords

  • Colorectal polyps
  • Endoscopic mucosal resection
  • Recurrence rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Endoscopic mucosal resection recurrence rate for colorectal lesions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this