Cargando…
Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries, while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred is still debatable. AIM: To compare the surgical, histological...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34321855 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v27.i25.3925 |
_version_ | 1783724567390322688 |
---|---|
author | Lim, Xiong Chang Nistala, Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Ng, Cheng Han Lin, Snow Yunni Tan, Darren Jun Hao Ho, Khek-Yu Chong, Choon-Seng Muthiah, Mark |
author_facet | Lim, Xiong Chang Nistala, Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Ng, Cheng Han Lin, Snow Yunni Tan, Darren Jun Hao Ho, Khek-Yu Chong, Choon-Seng Muthiah, Mark |
author_sort | Lim, Xiong Chang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries, while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred is still debatable. AIM: To compare the surgical, histological, and oncological outcomes between ESD and EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps, with subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of ESD and EMR between Japan and the rest of the world. METHODS: Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to October 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing en bloc, complete resection, margin involvement, resection time, need for additional surgery, complications, and recurrence rate of ESD with EMR. RESULTS: Of 281344 colorectal polyps from 21 studies were included. When compared to EMR, the pooled analysis revealed ESD was associated with higher en bloc and complete resection rate, and lower lateral margin involvement and recurrence. ESD led to increased procedural time, need for additional surgery, and perforation risk. No significant difference in bleeding risk was found between the two groups. Meta-regression analysis suggested only right colonic polyps correlated with an increased perforation risk in ESD. Confounders including polyp size and invasion depth did not significantly influence the en bloc and complete resection rate, bleeding risk and recurrence. In subgroup analysis, Japan performed better than the rest of the world in both ESD and EMR with perforation risk of 4% and 0.0002%, respectively, as compared to perforation risk of 8% and 1%, respectively, in reports coming from rest of the world. CONCLUSION: ESD resulted in better resection outcomes and lower recurrence compared to EMR. With appropriate training, ESD is preferred over EMR as the first-line therapy for resection of colorectal polyps, without restricting to lesions greater than 20 mm and those with high suspicion of submucosal invasion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8291020 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Baishideng Publishing Group Inc |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82910202021-07-27 Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis Lim, Xiong Chang Nistala, Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Ng, Cheng Han Lin, Snow Yunni Tan, Darren Jun Hao Ho, Khek-Yu Chong, Choon-Seng Muthiah, Mark World J Gastroenterol Meta-Analysis BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries, while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred is still debatable. AIM: To compare the surgical, histological, and oncological outcomes between ESD and EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps, with subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of ESD and EMR between Japan and the rest of the world. METHODS: Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to October 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing en bloc, complete resection, margin involvement, resection time, need for additional surgery, complications, and recurrence rate of ESD with EMR. RESULTS: Of 281344 colorectal polyps from 21 studies were included. When compared to EMR, the pooled analysis revealed ESD was associated with higher en bloc and complete resection rate, and lower lateral margin involvement and recurrence. ESD led to increased procedural time, need for additional surgery, and perforation risk. No significant difference in bleeding risk was found between the two groups. Meta-regression analysis suggested only right colonic polyps correlated with an increased perforation risk in ESD. Confounders including polyp size and invasion depth did not significantly influence the en bloc and complete resection rate, bleeding risk and recurrence. In subgroup analysis, Japan performed better than the rest of the world in both ESD and EMR with perforation risk of 4% and 0.0002%, respectively, as compared to perforation risk of 8% and 1%, respectively, in reports coming from rest of the world. CONCLUSION: ESD resulted in better resection outcomes and lower recurrence compared to EMR. With appropriate training, ESD is preferred over EMR as the first-line therapy for resection of colorectal polyps, without restricting to lesions greater than 20 mm and those with high suspicion of submucosal invasion. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2021-07-07 2021-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8291020/ /pubmed/34321855 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v27.i25.3925 Text en ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Meta-Analysis Lim, Xiong Chang Nistala, Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Ng, Cheng Han Lin, Snow Yunni Tan, Darren Jun Hao Ho, Khek-Yu Chong, Choon-Seng Muthiah, Mark Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
title | Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
title_full | Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
title_fullStr | Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
title_short | Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
title_sort | endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis |
topic | Meta-Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34321855 http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v27.i25.3925 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT limxiongchang endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT nistalakameswararishiyeshayahu endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT ngchenghan endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT linsnowyunni endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT tandarrenjunhao endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT hokhekyu endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT chongchoonseng endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis AT muthiahmark endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionvsendoscopicmucosalresectionforcolorectalpolypsametaanalysisandmetaregressionwithsinglearmanalysis |