Cargando…

Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims: Submucosal injection is standard practice in endoscopic mucosal resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Several solutions are used. Our aim was to systematically review their efficacy and safety. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using a ran...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferreira, Alexandre Oliveira, Moleiro, Joana, Torres, Joana, Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26793777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393079
_version_ 1782410161472667648
author Ferreira, Alexandre Oliveira
Moleiro, Joana
Torres, Joana
Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario
author_facet Ferreira, Alexandre Oliveira
Moleiro, Joana
Torres, Joana
Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario
author_sort Ferreira, Alexandre Oliveira
collection PubMed
description Background and aims: Submucosal injection is standard practice in endoscopic mucosal resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Several solutions are used. Our aim was to systematically review their efficacy and safety. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using a random effects model of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE. Studies in animal models were qualitatively assessed for efficacy and safety. Results: In total, 54 studies were qualitatively assessed. Eleven RCTs were analyzed, two of which were on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The quantitative synthesis included nine RCTs on endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), comprising 792 subjects and 793 lesions. Mean lesion size was 20.9 mm (range 8.5 – 46 mm). A total of 209 lesions were randomized to sodium hyaluronate (SH) vs normal saline (NS), 72 to 50 % dextrose (D50) vs NS, 82 to D50 vs SH, 43 to succinylated gelatin, 25 to hydroxyethyl starch and 36 to fibrinogen. In total, 385 were randomized to NS as controls. NS and SH are the best studied solutions and seem to be equally effective in achieving complete resection (OR 1.09; 95 %CI 0.82, 1.45). No solution was proven to be superior in complete resection rate, post-polypectomy bleeding or coagulation syndrome/perforation incidence. Many solutions have been tested in animal studies and most seem more effective for mucosal elevation than NS. Conclusions: There are several solutions in clinical use and many more under research, but most are poorly studied. SH seems to be clinically equivalent to NS. There are no significant differences in post-polypectomy complications. Larger RCTs are needed to determine any small differences that may exist between solutions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4713187
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47131872016-01-20 Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ferreira, Alexandre Oliveira Moleiro, Joana Torres, Joana Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario Endosc Int Open Article Background and aims: Submucosal injection is standard practice in endoscopic mucosal resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Several solutions are used. Our aim was to systematically review their efficacy and safety. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using a random effects model of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE. Studies in animal models were qualitatively assessed for efficacy and safety. Results: In total, 54 studies were qualitatively assessed. Eleven RCTs were analyzed, two of which were on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The quantitative synthesis included nine RCTs on endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), comprising 792 subjects and 793 lesions. Mean lesion size was 20.9 mm (range 8.5 – 46 mm). A total of 209 lesions were randomized to sodium hyaluronate (SH) vs normal saline (NS), 72 to 50 % dextrose (D50) vs NS, 82 to D50 vs SH, 43 to succinylated gelatin, 25 to hydroxyethyl starch and 36 to fibrinogen. In total, 385 were randomized to NS as controls. NS and SH are the best studied solutions and seem to be equally effective in achieving complete resection (OR 1.09; 95 %CI 0.82, 1.45). No solution was proven to be superior in complete resection rate, post-polypectomy bleeding or coagulation syndrome/perforation incidence. Many solutions have been tested in animal studies and most seem more effective for mucosal elevation than NS. Conclusions: There are several solutions in clinical use and many more under research, but most are poorly studied. SH seems to be clinically equivalent to NS. There are no significant differences in post-polypectomy complications. Larger RCTs are needed to determine any small differences that may exist between solutions. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2016-01 2015-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4713187/ /pubmed/26793777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393079 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers
spellingShingle Article
Ferreira, Alexandre Oliveira
Moleiro, Joana
Torres, Joana
Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario
Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26793777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393079
work_keys_str_mv AT ferreiraalexandreoliveira solutionsforsubmucosalinjectioninendoscopicresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT moleirojoana solutionsforsubmucosalinjectioninendoscopicresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT torresjoana solutionsforsubmucosalinjectioninendoscopicresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dinisribeiromario solutionsforsubmucosalinjectioninendoscopicresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis