Effect of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection on postoperative wound complications in patients with gastric cancer: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractEndoscopic submucosa dissection (ESD) allows complete excision of the whole lesion, which results in a higher percentage of complete excision and an improved quality of life by minimizing the amount of excision as opposed to an endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Although ESD is now being carried out in the majority of hospitals, ESD's possible complications (such as trauma and perforation) have given rise to doubts about ESD practices in patients with early‐stage stomach cancer when deciding on therapy and reimbursement. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESD over EMR in treating early‐stage stomach cancer. Four main databases have been searched, including EMBASE and published. The ROBINS‐I tool suggested in the Cochrane Handbook has been applied to evaluate the quality of the chosen trials. It may better reflect the risk of bias in the included studies. The meta‐analyses were carried out with ReMan 5.3, and the results were treated with endote. Seven cohort studies have been completed. Meta analysis indicated that EMR and ESD surgery did not differ significantly from each other in terms of postoperative haemorrhage (OR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.56,1.04 p = 0.09); EMR, however, was associated with a lower rate of postoperative perforation than ESD surgery (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.24,0.54 p < 0.0001). Taking into account that ESD and EMR did not differ significantly in the risk of wound bleeding, even though the risk of perforation is not likely to result in life‐threatening illness. In the analysis of these data, however, the potential advantages of EMR might be greater than ESD.