Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Endoscopic submucosal dissection outperforms precut mucosal resection for colorectal polyp removal

Endoscopic submucosal dissection outperforms precut mucosal resection for colorectal polyp removal
Photo by Navy Medicine / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
ESD achieves higher en bloc and histologic resection rates than EMR-P without increasing bleeding or perforation risks.

A meta-analysis evaluating 1,460 patients with colorectal polyps compared the efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) against precut endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-P). The study focused on primary and secondary outcomes including resection completeness and procedural safety.

Results indicated that EMR-P is associated with significantly lower rates of en bloc resection (OR: 0.15) and complete histologic resection (OR: 0.50) compared to ESD. However, for larger polyps measuring 20-30 mm, the outcomes for both en bloc and complete histologic resection were comparable between the two techniques.

While EMR-P demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times (MD: -29.05 minutes), it did not offer superior clinical efficacy. Importantly, no significant differences were observed regarding the frequency of adverse events, such as bleeding or perforation, between the two methods.

Clinicians may consider ESD as the preferred approach for achieving higher resection success in most colorectal polyps, despite the increased procedure time, as it maintains a similar safety profile to EMR-P.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 1,460
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing precut endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-P) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the management of colorectal polyps have reported conflicting results. In this meta-analysis, we have compared outcomes of EMR-P and ESD. METHODS: Several databases were reviewed from inception to 15 December 2024 to identify studies comparing EMR-P and ESD for colorectal polyps. Our outcomes of interest were en bloc and complete histologic resection, procedure time, perforation, and bleeding. For the outcomes of en bloc and complete histologic resection, we performed subgroup analyses including greater than or equal to 20 mm polyps and 20-30 mm polyps. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous variables. RESULTS: We included nine studies comprising 1460 patients. The rate of en bloc resection was significantly lower in the EMR-P group (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.23). The rate of complete histologic resection was significantly lower in the EMR-P group (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.94). There was no significant difference in rates of en bloc and complete histologic resection between groups for 20-30 mm polyps. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the EMR-P group (Mean difference [MD]: -29.05, 95% CI: -37.04 to -21.06). There was no significant difference in adverse events such as bleeding and perforation between groups. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of ESD over EMR-P in achieving higher rates of en bloc and complete resection for colorectal polyps without increasing the risk of adverse events except for 20-30 mm polyps, where the outcomes were comparable between groups.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.