Table 2.
Selected studies on EMR in Barrett’s esophagus
| Author | Number of patiens | Size of lesions cm (mean) | Technique | Histology pre-EMR | Histology post-EMR | Change in diagnosis (%) | Complications | Follow-up months (mean) | Recurrence |
| Seewald et al 2003 Germany[24] | 12 | Median 5 | EUS Snare | 5 HGD/ IMC (visible) 7 IMC | 2 BE 1 LGD 5 HGD | 75% | Bl: 33% Stricture:17% | Median: 9 | 0 |
| (non-visible) | |||||||||
| AC 4 | |||||||||
| Ahmad et al 2002 | 19/101 | 0.5-3 | EUS | AC 6 | AC 8 | 58% | Bl: 11% | >=24 | 0 |
| USA[33] | EMR-C | HGD 6 | HGD 4 | ||||||
| Snare | NOS 7 | LGD 1 | |||||||
| injection | Benign 6 | ||||||||
| May et al 2002 | 80 | Nos | EUS | HGD 7 | AC: 11/80 | Nos | Bl: 6% | 34 | 24/78 |
| Germany[17] | EMR±PDT | EC 73 | Stricture: 4% |