Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Table 2 Colorectal polyps in the study participants

Parameter	CEMR (n = 71)	UEMR (n = 71)	Total (n = 142)	P value
Median Size, (IQR, mm)	5.0 (4.0–7.0)	6.0 (5.0–8.0)	6.0 (4.0–7.0)	0.061^a
Location, n (%)				0.612^b
Ascending colon	16 (22.5)	13 (18.3)	28 (20.4)
Transverse colon	17 (23.9)	21 (29.6)	38 (26.8)
Descending colon	5 (7.1)	6 (8.4)	11 (7.7)
Sigmoid colon	28 (39.4)	22 (31.0)	50 (35.2)
Rectum	5 (7.1)	9 (12.7)	14 (9.9)
Morphology, n (%)				0.339^b
0-Is	50 (70.4)	54 (76.1)	104 (73.2)
0-Ip	0 (0.0)	1 (1.4)	1 (0.7)
0-IIa	21 (29.6)	16 (22.5)	37 (26.1)
Neoplastic polyps, n (%)				0.618^b
Tubular	47 (66.2)	48 (67.6)	95 (66.9)
Tubulovillous or villous	0 (0.0)	2 (2.8)	2 (1.4)
SSA	1 (1.4)	1 (1.4)	2 (1.4)
Other polyps, n (%)
Hyperplastic polyps	13 (18.3)	9 (12.7)	22 (15.5)
Inflammatory polyps	10 (14.1)	11 (15.5)	21 (14.8)

CEMR conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, UEMR underwater endoscopic mucosal resection, SSA sessile serrated adenoma
^a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. ^b Chi-square test

ISSN: 1471-230X