Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hydroxy-propyl-methyl-cellulose is a safe and effective lifting agent for endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is today the treatment of choice for flat and sessile colorectal lesion, the only concern being completeness of resection. One of the major issues is the choice of the infiltrating substance to enable a long-lasting cushion under the lesion. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate safety and efficacy of hydroxy-propyl-methyl-cellulose (HPMC) injection for this purpose.

Patients

All flat and sessile lesions of the colon and rectum larger than 20 mm and considered suitable for EMR were included. In all cases 0.8% HPMC solution was injected through a 23G needle, in quantity according to the endoscopist’s indication. Primary endpoints of the study were: (1) ability to perform en bloc resection of the lesions by using this new injection means, (2) complete resection rate, and (3) early and late complication rate.

Results

We resected 27 flat, sessile, or laterally spreading lesions up to 60 mm (28 mm average). Mean dose of HPMC injected was 10.2 ml (range 8–40 ml). Median procedure time was 32 min (range 15–105 min). En bloc resection was achieved in up to 21 cases (78%). Histologically detected complete tumour removal was achieved in 23 lesions, whereas lateral margins could not be properly evaluated in 4 cases due to coagulation artefacts. No perforation was observed. Procedural spurting bleeding was managed by epinephrine injection in one case and clip application in the remaining. Two case of local recurrence of adenomatous tissue were observed at 3 and 12 months, and treated by EMR. No complication related to the use of HPMC was observed.

Conclusions

Injection of HPMC for EMR resulted safe and effective, allowing en bloc resection in the majority of cases with a limited number of complications. Continued progress in the field will include more outcomes research and techniques simplification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ishiguro A, Uno Y, Ishiguro Y, Munakata A, Morita T (1999) Correlation of lifting versus non-lifting and microscopic depth of invasion in early colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 50:329–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim MH, Lee SK, Seo DW, Won SY, Lee SS, Min YI (2001) Tumors of the major duodenal papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 54:609–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fleischer D (2000) Endoscopic mucosal resection: (not) made in the USA (so commonly). A dissection of the definition, technique, use, and controversies [editorial]. Gastrointest Endosc 52:440–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Technology status report evaluation, Endoscopic mucosal resection (2000) Gastrointest Endosc 52:831–837

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sakai P, Maluf Filho F, Iryia K, Moura EG, Tomishigue T, Scabbia A et al (1996) An endoscopic technique for resection of small gastrointestinal carcinomas. Gastrointest Endosc 44:65–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleischer DE, Wang GQ, Dawsey S, Tio TL, Newsome J, Kidwell J et al (1996) Tissue band ligation followed by snare resection (band and snare): a new technique for tissue acquisition in the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 44:68–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Torii A, Sakai M, Kajiyama T, Kishimoto H, Kin G, Inoue K et al (1995) Endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy as curative endoscopic surgery; analysis of 24 cases of early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 42:475–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamamoto H, Yube T, Isoda N, Sato Y, Sekine Y, Higashizawa T et al (1999) A novel method of endoscopic mucosal resection using sodium hyaluronate. Gastrointest Endosc 50:251–256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yamamoto H (1999) A successful single-step endoscopic resection of a 40 millimeter flat-elevated tumor in the rectum: endoscopic mucosal resection using sodium hyaluronate. Gastrointest Endosc 50:701–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Feitoza A, Gostout CJ, Burgart LJ, Burkert A, Herman LJ, Rajan E (2003) Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose: a better submucosal fluid cushion for endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 57:41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dick HB (2001) Evaluation of viscoelastic substances. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1711–1712

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ravalico G, Tognetto D, Baccara F, Lovisato A (1997) Corneal endothelial protection by different viscoelastics during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 23:433–439

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith SG, Lindstrom RL (1991) 2% hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as a viscous surgical adjunct. A multicenter prospective randomized trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 17:839–842

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon, Rectum (1997) Japanese Classification of Colorectal Carcinoma. Kanehara, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kudo S, Tamegai Y, Ymano H et al (2001) Endoscopic mucosal resection of the colon: the Japanese technique. Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am 11:519–535

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yeh RW, Triadafilopoulos G (2005) Submucosal injection: safety cushion at what cost [editorial]? Gastrointest Endosc 62:943–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kashimura K, Matsuura T, Nakamura N, Kakushima N, Kodashima S, Ono S, Kobayashi K, Hashimoto T, Yamamichi N, Tateishi A, Shimizu Y, Oka M, Ichinose M, Omata M (2005) Tissue damage of different submucosal injection solutions for EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 62:933–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Uraoka T, Fujii T, Saito Y, Sumiyoshi T, Emura F, Bhandari P, Matsuda T, Fu KI, Saito D (2005) Effectiveness of glycerol as a submucosal injection for EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 61:736–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kashimura K et al (2004) Comparison of various submucosal injection solutions for maintaining mucosal elevation during endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 36:579–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Matsui Y, Inomata M, Izumi K et al (2004) Hyaluronic acid stimulates tumor-cell proliferation at wound sites. Gastrointest Endosc 60:539–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Storr-Paulsen A, Larsen M (1991) Long-term results of extracapsular cataract extraction with posterior chamber lens implantation: sodium hyaluronate 1% vs hydroxypropyl methylcellulose 2%. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 69:766–769

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Liesegang TJ, Bourne WM, Ilstrup DM (1986) The use of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose in extracapsular cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Am J Ophthalmol 102:723–726

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Alio JL, Mulet ME, Shalaby AM, Attia WH (2002) Phacoemulsification in the anterior chamber. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:67–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heng PW, Chan LW, Easterbrook MG, Li X (2001) Investigation of the influence of mean particle size and number of polymer particles on the release of aspirin from swellable hydrophilic matrix tablets. J Control Release 76:39–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Katzhendler I, Mader K, Friedman M (2000) Structure and hydration properties of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose matrices containing naproxen and naproxen sodium. Int J Pharm 200:161–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Siepmann J, Kranz H, Peppas NA, Bodmeier R (2000) Calculation of the required size and shape of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose matrices to achieve desired drug release profiles. Int J Pharm 201:151–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Toda I, Shinozaki N, Tsubota K (1996) Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose for the treatment of severe dry eye associated with Sjogren’s syndrome. Cornea 15:120–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Osborn E, Baum JL, Ernst C, Koch P (1976) The stability of ten antibiotics in artificial tear solutions. Am J Ophthalmol 82:775–780

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Obara S (1992) Primary dermal and eye irritability tests of hydrophobically modified hydroxypropyl methylcellulose in rabbits. J Toxicol Sci 17:21–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Obara S (1992) Studies on single-dose toxicity of hydrophobically modified hydroxypropyl methylcellulose in rats. J Toxicol Sci 17:13–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Arantes V, Albuquerque W, Lima D, Vilela S, Lima G Jr, Duarte D, Benfica E, Filho FM, Artifon E, Sakai P (2006) Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with a new solution: 0.4% hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC). Gastrointest Endosc 63:AB247

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bacani CJ, Woodward TA, Raimondo M, Al-Haddad MA, Noh KW, Pungpapong S, Wallace MB (2007) Efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection with hydroxy-propyl-methyl-cellulose compared to normal saline. Gastrointest Endosc 65:AB284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay JF, Blanchi S, Dumas R, Filiberti R (2004) EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 60:234–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Doniec JM, Lohnert MS, Schniewind B, Bokelmann F, Kremer B, Grimm H (2003) Endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps: prevention of unnecessary surgery? Dis Colon Rectum 46:340–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jin Hyun J, Rae Chun H, Jai Chun H, Tae Jeen Y, Won Baeck C, Kyun Yu S, Sik Kim Y, Sik Lee H, Ho Um S, Woo Lee S, Hyun Choi J, Duck Kim C, Sang Ryu H, Hai Hyun J (2006) Comparison of the characteristics of submucosal injection solutions used in endoscopic mucosal resection. Scand J Gastroenterol 41:488–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Università di Torino, corso Achille Mario Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy

    A. Arezzo & M. Morino

  2. Endoscopy Unit, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, MI, Italy

    N. Pagano, F. Romeo, G. Delconte, C. Hervoso & A. Repici

Authors
  1. A. Arezzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Pagano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Romeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Delconte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Hervoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Morino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Repici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Arezzo.

Additional information

None of the authors have any conflict of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arezzo, A., Pagano, N., Romeo, F. et al. Hydroxy-propyl-methyl-cellulose is a safe and effective lifting agent for endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc 23, 1065–1069 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0133-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0133-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation