Chawin Lopimpisuth1,2, Malorie Simons3, Venkata S Akshintala1, Klaorat Prasongdee2, Julie Nanavati4, Saowanee Ngamruengphong1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University, 733 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University, 733 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, USA. malorie.simons@gmail.com. 4. Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) is a technically demanding procedure with prolonged procedure times and higher risk of adverse events. To overcome the procedural difficulty of ESD, several traction-assisted techniques (T-ESD) have been developed to improve visualization of the submucosa in hopes to facilitate safe and effective dissection. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis that compares short-term outcomes (30-day) of T-ESD to C-ESD. METHODS: Clinical studies published up to April 2020 comparing the efficacy and safety of T-ESD and C-ESD were identified using electronic bibliographic searches. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Outcomes of interests were procedure time, rates of en bloc and R0 resection, and rates of adverse events. Fixed effect and random effect model were used to calculate pooled mean difference for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for categorical variables. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies with 2574 patients were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 2582 lesions (1292 T-ESD and 1290 C-ESD). Pooled estimates of T-ESD showed shorter procedure times (weighted mean difference = -20.35 min, 95% CI -27.51 to -13.19, p < 0.001), higher R0 resection rates (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.06, p = 0.004) and lower perforation rates (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.01, p = < 0.0001). No significant differences were seen in en bloc rates and bleeding risk between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Traction-assisted ESD results in shorter procedure time, improved R0 resection rates and lower risk of perforation as compared to conventional ESD.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) is a technically demanding procedure with prolonged procedure times and higher risk of adverse events. To overcome the procedural difficulty of ESD, several traction-assisted techniques (T-ESD) have been developed to improve visualization of the submucosa in hopes to facilitate safe and effective dissection. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis that compares short-term outcomes (30-day) of T-ESD to C-ESD. METHODS: Clinical studies published up to April 2020 comparing the efficacy and safety of T-ESD and C-ESD were identified using electronic bibliographic searches. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Outcomes of interests were procedure time, rates of en bloc and R0 resection, and rates of adverse events. Fixed effect and random effect model were used to calculate pooled mean difference for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for categorical variables. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies with 2574 patients were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 2582 lesions (1292 T-ESD and 1290 C-ESD). Pooled estimates of T-ESD showed shorter procedure times (weighted mean difference = -20.35 min, 95% CI -27.51 to -13.19, p < 0.001), higher R0 resection rates (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.06, p = 0.004) and lower perforation rates (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.01, p = < 0.0001). No significant differences were seen in en bloc rates and bleeding risk between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Traction-assisted ESD results in shorter procedure time, improved R0 resection rates and lower risk of perforation as compared to conventional ESD.
Authors: A Imagawa; H Okada; Y Kawahara; R Takenaka; J Kato; H Kawamoto; S Fujiki; R Takata; T Yoshino; Y Shiratori Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: H Isomoto; S Shikuwa; N Yamaguchi; E Fukuda; K Ikeda; H Nishiyama; K Ohnita; Y Mizuta; J Shiozawa; S Kohno Journal: Gut Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 23.059