AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the treatment of colorectal tumors. METHODS: Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index updated to 2013 were searched to include eligible articles. In the meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were the en bloc resection rate, the histological resection rate and the local recurrence rate. Meanwhile, we also compared the operation time and the incidence of procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Six trials were identified and a total of 1642 lesions were included. The en bloc resection rate was higher and the local recurrence rate was lower in the ESD group compared with the EMR group (OR = 7.94; 95%CI: 3.96-15.91; OR = 0.09; 95%CI: 0.04-0.19). There was no significant difference in histological resection rate(OR = 1.65; 95%CI: 0.29-9.30) and procedure-related complication rate between the two groups (OR = 1.59; 95%CI: 0.92-2.73). The meta-analysis also showed that ESD was more time consuming than EMR. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD results in higher en bloc resection rate and lower local recurrence rate for the treatment of colorectal tumors, without increasing the procedure-related complications.
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the treatment of colorectal tumors. METHODS: Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index updated to 2013 were searched to include eligible articles. In the meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were the en bloc resection rate, the histological resection rate and the local recurrence rate. Meanwhile, we also compared the operation time and the incidence of procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Six trials were identified and a total of 1642 lesions were included. The en bloc resection rate was higher and the local recurrence rate was lower in the ESD group compared with the EMR group (OR = 7.94; 95%CI: 3.96-15.91; OR = 0.09; 95%CI: 0.04-0.19). There was no significant difference in histological resection rate(OR = 1.65; 95%CI: 0.29-9.30) and procedure-related complication rate between the two groups (OR = 1.59; 95%CI: 0.92-2.73). The meta-analysis also showed that ESD was more time consuming than EMR. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD results in higher en bloc resection rate and lower local recurrence rate for the treatment of colorectal tumors, without increasing the procedure-related complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal tumors; Complication; En bloc resection; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Histological resection; Local recurrence
Authors: H Yamamoto; H Koiwai; T Yube; N Isoda; Y Sato; Y Sekine; T Higashizawa; K Utsunomiya; K Ido; K Sugano Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M Hirao; K Masuda; T Asanuma; H Naka; K Noda; K Matsuura; O Yamaguchi; N Ueda Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1988 May-Jun Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: S Tanaka; K Haruma; S Oka; R Takahashi; M Kunihiro; Y Kitadai; M Yoshihara; F Shimamoto; K Chayama Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: S Tamura; K Nakajo; Y Yokoyama; K Ohkawauchi; T Yamada; Y Higashidani; T Miyamoto; H Ueta; S Onishi Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: F Bianco; A Arezzo; F Agresta; C Coco; R Faletti; Z Krivocapic; G Rotondano; G A Santoro; N Vettoretto; S De Franciscis; A Belli; G M Romano Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: R Manta; F Tremolaterra; A Arezzo; M Verra; G Galloro; L Dioscoridi; F Pugliese; A Zullo; M Mutignani; G Bassotti Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: J Seidel; E Färber; R Baumbach; W Cordruwisch; U Böhmler; B Feyerabend; S Faiss Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick M Lynch; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Brian R Weston; Mala Pande; Robert S Bresalier; Asif Rashid; Lopa Mishra; Marta L Davila; John R Stroehlein Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Akira Dobashi; Andrew C Storm; Louis M Wong Kee Song; Christopher J Gostout; Jodie L Deters; Charles A Miller; Mary A Knipschield; Elizabeth Rajan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 4.584