Scissor‐assisted vs. conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

Veras Ayres da Silva Pedro Henrique1ORCID,So Taa Kum Angelo1ORCID,Logetto Caetité Gomes Igor1ORCID,Miyajima Nelson Tomio1ORCID,Moraes Bestetti Alexandre1ORCID,Cadena Aguirre Diego Paul1ORCID,Mansilla Gallegos Megui Marilia1ORCID,Menezes Nascimento Filho Hiram1ORCID,Gomes de Sousa Igor Valdeir1ORCID,Marques Bernardo Wanderley1ORCID,Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Eduardo1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Clinical Hospital University of São Paulo School of Medicine São Paulo Brazil

Abstract

ObjectivesColorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically complex procedure. The scissor knife mechanism may potentially provide easier and safer colorectal ESD. The aim of this meta‐analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scissor‐assisted vs. conventional ESD for colorectal lesions.MethodsA search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Lilacs databases from January 1990 to November 2023 according to PRISMA guidelines. Fixed and random‐effects models were used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS‐I and RoB‐2 tools. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.ResultsA total of five studies (three retrospective and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 1575 colorectal ESD) were selected. The intraoperative perforation rate was statistically lower (risk difference [RD] −0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.04 to −0.01; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%) and the self‐completion rate was statistically higher (RD 0.14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.23; P = 0.0006; I2 = 0%) in the scissor‐assisted group compared with the conventional ESD group. There was no statistical difference in R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate, mean procedure time, or delayed bleeding rate between the groups.ConclusionScissor knife‐assisted ESD is as effective as conventional knife‐assisted ESD for colorectal lesions with lower intraoperative perforation rate and a higher self‐completion rate.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3