Table 3.
Selected studies on EMR in Barrett’s esophagus
| Author | Number of pts | Size of lesions cm (mean) | Technique | Histology pre-EMR | Histology post-EMR | Change in diagnosis (%) | Complications | Follow-up Months (mean) | Recurrence |
| Buttar et al 2001 USA[34] | 17 | 8 | EUS VLD-PDT | IMC: 7 AC: 10 | IMC: 7 AC: 10 | 47% | Bl: 6% Stricture: 30% | 13 | HGD (1)1 AC (1) |
| Injection | |||||||||
| Nijhawan et al 2000 USA[35] | 25 | 7 | EUS Lift-and-cut VLD | 2 BE 8 LGD 5 HGD | 2 BE 3 LGD 5 HGD | 48% | 0 | 14.6 | 0 |
| Injection | 9 AC | 13 AC | |||||||
| 1 other | 2 other | ||||||||
| Ell et al 2000 | 35 | 0.9 | EUS | HGD: 3 | HGD: 3 | 0 | Bl: 20% | 12 | 11% |
| Germany[36] | EMR± | EC: 32 | EC: 32 | ||||||
| injection |
Pts: patients; EMR: endoscopic mucosal resection; EUS: endoscopic ultrasonography; HGD: high-grade dysplasia; IMC: intramucosal carcinoma; BE: Barrett's esophagus; LGD: low-grade dysplasia; AC: invasive adenocarcinoma; Bl: bleeding; EMR-C: EMR with cap; PDT: photodynamic therapy; Nos: not otherwise specified; VLD: variceal ligator device; EC: early cancer;
1
persistence of HGD.