Alberto Arezzo1, Roberto Passera2, Nicola Marchese1, Giuseppe Galloro3, Raffaele Manta4, Roberto Cirocchi5. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. 2. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. 3. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Napoli, Naples, Italy. 4. Digestive and Interventional Endoscopy, Department of Surgery, Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of flat and sessile colorectal lesions >20 mm preoperatively assessed as noninvasive. METHODS: We reviewed the literature published between January 2000 and March 2014. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with en bloc, R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment were compared in a meta-analysis using fixed and random effects. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies and 4678 patients were included. The en bloc resection rate was 89.9% for ESD vs 34.9% for EMR patients (RR 1.93 p < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 79.6% for ESD vs 36.2% for EMR patients (RR 2.01 p < 0.001). The rate of perforation was 4.9% for the ESD group and 0.9% for EMR (RR 3.19, p < 0.001), while the rate of bleeding was 1.9% for ESD and 2.9% for EMR (RR 0.68, p = 0.070). Therefore, the overall need for further surgery, including surgery for oncologic reasons and surgery for complications, was 7.8% for ESD and 3.0% for EMR (RR 2.40, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD achieves a higher rate of en bloc and R0 resection compared to EMR, at the cost of a higher risk of complications. This, added to an increased need for surgery for oncologic reasons for a plausible tendency to extend indication for endoscopic excision, increases the risk of further surgery after ESD.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of flat and sessile colorectal lesions >20 mm preoperatively assessed as noninvasive. METHODS: We reviewed the literature published between January 2000 and March 2014. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with en bloc, R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment were compared in a meta-analysis using fixed and random effects. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies and 4678 patients were included. The en bloc resection rate was 89.9% for ESD vs 34.9% for EMR patients (RR 1.93 p < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 79.6% for ESD vs 36.2% for EMR patients (RR 2.01 p < 0.001). The rate of perforation was 4.9% for the ESD group and 0.9% for EMR (RR 3.19, p < 0.001), while the rate of bleeding was 1.9% for ESD and 2.9% for EMR (RR 0.68, p = 0.070). Therefore, the overall need for further surgery, including surgery for oncologic reasons and surgery for complications, was 7.8% for ESD and 3.0% for EMR (RR 2.40, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD achieves a higher rate of en bloc and R0 resection compared to EMR, at the cost of a higher risk of complications. This, added to an increased need for surgery for oncologic reasons for a plausible tendency to extend indication for endoscopic excision, increases the risk of further surgery after ESD.
Authors: J J Deeks; J Dinnes; R D'Amico; A J Sowden; C Sakarovitch; F Song; M Petticrew; D G Altman Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: James Weiquan Li; Tiing Leong Ang; Lai Mun Wang; Andrew Boon Eu Kwek; Malcolm Teck Kiang Tan; Kwong Ming Fock; Eng Kiong Teo Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Patrick Aepli; Dominique Criblez; Stephan Baumeler; Jan Borovicka; Remus Frei Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Chan Hyuk Park; Dong-Hoon Yang; Jong Wook Kim; Jie-Hyun Kim; Ji Hyun Kim; Yang Won Min; Si Hyung Lee; Jung Ho Bae; Hyunsoo Chung; Kee Don Choi; Jun Chul Park; Hyuk Lee; Min-Seob Kwak; Bun Kim; Hyun Jung Lee; Hye Seung Lee; Miyoung Choi; Dong-Ah Park; Jong Yeul Lee; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Chan Guk Park; Joo Young Cho; Soo Teik Lee; Hoon Jai Chun Journal: Intest Res Date: 2020-10-13