Conventional Versus Traction Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Tumors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

13Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: Compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for colorectal lesions, the traction method (T-ESD) allows the lesion to be stabilized with easier dissection. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results on the clinical outcomes of T-ESD as compared with C-ESD. We conducted a meta-Analysis to compile the data. Methods: Multiple databases were searched for RCTs evaluating C-ESD versus T-ESD for colorectal tumors. The end points of interest were procedure time (min), resection speed (mm/min), R0 resection, en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, and perforation. Standard meta-Analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 566 patients (C-ESD n=284, T-ESD n=282) were included. The mean age was 67±10 y and 60% were men. As compared with the T-ESD technique, the C-ESD group was associated with longer procedure time (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23, P<0.00001) and lesser resection speed (SMD-1.03, 95% CI-2.01 to-0.06, P=0.04). No significant difference was found in the 2 groups with respect to R0 resection rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P=0.87), en bloc resection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, P=0.35), delayed bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.59, P=0.55) and perforation (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 6.27, P=0.16). Discussion: On meta-Analysis, pooled procedure time was significantly faster with T-ESD compared with C-ESD. The clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Singh, S., Mohan, B. P., Chandan, S., Sharma, N., Vinayek, R., Dutta, S., … Adler, D. G. (2024). Conventional Versus Traction Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Tumors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 58(10), 1016–1021. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001973

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free