Systematic review and meta-analysisClinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Review articleOpen access
Abstract:

Background and AimsEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic resection technique for lesions suspicious of superficial malignancy. It is performed using an ESD knife on its own (standard technique) or by the sequential use of a knife and a snare (hybrid technique). The experience with these techniques is different in Asian and non-Asian countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on colorectal ESD.MethodsElectronic databases were searched up to August 2016 for studies evaluating R0, en bloc resection, and adverse event rates of both techniques for the treatment of colorectal lesions. Proportions were pooled by a random effects model.ResultsNinety-seven studies (71 performed in Asia) evaluated the standard technique and 12 studies (7 in Asia) the hybrid technique. The R0 resection rate of the standard technique was 82.9%, and it was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries: 71.3% versus 85.6%. The en bloc resection rate was 91% and was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries (81.2% vs 93%, respectively). Surgery was needed in 1.1% of the ESD-related adverse events, with a significant difference between non-Asian and Asian countries (3.1% vs 0.8%). The R0 and en bloc resection rates with the hybrid technique were significantly lower than those achieved with the standard technique: 60.6% and 68.4%, respectively, with similar adverse event rates.ConclusionsIn non-Asian countries the standard ESD technique is still failing to achieve acceptable levels of performance. The hybrid technique showed low R0 resection rates and should not be considered as an adequate alternative to the standard technique.

Request full text

References (0)

Cited By (0)

No reference data.
No citation data.
Advertisement
Join Copernicus Academic and get access to over 12 million papers authored by 7+ million academics.
Join for free!