COMPARISON OF TUNNEL AND CLASSICAL METHODS OF ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION IN EPITHELIAL COLON TUMORS (systematic review and meta-analysis)

Author:

Yugay O. M.1,Mtvralashvili D. A.1,Veselov V. V.1,Vaganov Yu. E.1,Mainovskaya O. E.1,Likutov A. A.1,Nagudov M. A.1,Chernyshov S. V.1

Affiliation:

1. Ryzhikh National Medical Research Centre for Coloproctology of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Abstract

BACKGROUND: endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a modern effective method for patients with benign epithelial tumors and early colorectal cancer.The use of such a technique for ESD as a submucosal tunnel (‘pocket’) – creation under a tumor creates conditions for improving the surgical specimen qualityand reducingfragmentationrate.Aim: to study the effectiveness and safety of the tunnel method of ESD (TESD) in comparison with classical ESD (CESD) in colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer.MATERIALS AND METHODS: literature search and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations using the PUBMED search system in the Medline electronic database without limiting publication datesin the English language literature. The systematic review included all the studies on comparison of the tunnel and classical ESD methods.RESULTS: the analysis included 4 studies (1,422 patients, 458 in the TESD group and 961 in the CESD group). The groups were comparable in the number of adenomas (OR=1.25; 95% CI=0.87-1.79; p=0.22), adenocarcinomas (OR=0.96; 95% CI=0.49-1.87; p=0.90), in the size of neoplasms (95% CI=-6.26-1.22; p=0.19), and in the presence of submucosal fibrosis (p=0.69). There were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding rate (OR=1.24; 95% CI=0.53-2.88; p=0.61); however, perforations occurred more often when using CESD (OR= 0.35; 95% CI=0.15-0.83; p=0.02). The CESD took significantly longer time than the TESD (OR=-19.1; 95% CI=33.89-4.45; p=0.01). The frequency of en bloc resections (OR=16.06; 95% CI=4.95-52.11; p<0.0001) and R0-resections (OR=3.28; 95% CI=1.30-8.32; p=0.01) were significantly higher in the TESD. CONCLUSION: the tunnel method of endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective and safe alternative to the classical method. However, there is currently a lack of data for the choice of submucosal dissection method for large colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer, which requires further comparative studies.

Publisher

Russian Association of Coloproctology

Subject

Materials Chemistry

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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