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

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Digestive Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1111/den.14829
Pedro Henrique Veras Ayres da Silva, Angelo So Taa Kum, Igor Logetto Caetité Gomes, Nelson Tomio Miyajima, Alexandre Moraes Bestetti, Diego Paul Cadena Aguirre, Megui Marilia Mansilla Gallegos, Hiram Menezes Nascimento Filho, Igor Valdeir Gomes de Sousa, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
{"title":"Scissor-assisted vs. conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Pedro Henrique Veras Ayres da Silva,&nbsp;Angelo So Taa Kum,&nbsp;Igor Logetto Caetité Gomes,&nbsp;Nelson Tomio Miyajima,&nbsp;Alexandre Moraes Bestetti,&nbsp;Diego Paul Cadena Aguirre,&nbsp;Megui Marilia Mansilla Gallegos,&nbsp;Hiram Menezes Nascimento Filho,&nbsp;Igor Valdeir Gomes de Sousa,&nbsp;Wanderley Marques Bernardo,&nbsp;Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura","doi":"10.1111/den.14829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Colorectal 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A 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 <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A 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; <i>P</i> = 0.001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) and the self-completion rate was statistically higher (RD 0.14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.23; <i>P</i> = 0.0006; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Scissor 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"36 11","pages":"1213-1224"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/den.14829","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Colorectal 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusion

Scissor 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
剪刀辅助与传统内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗结直肠病变:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:结肠直肠内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)是一项技术复杂的手术。剪刀刀机制有可能提供更简单、更安全的结直肠ESD。本荟萃分析的目的是评估剪刀辅助与传统ESD治疗结直肠病变的有效性和安全性:方法:根据PRISMA指南,在1990年1月至2023年11月期间的MEDLINE、Embase和Lilacs数据库中进行了检索。统计分析采用固定效应和随机效应模型。异质性通过 I2 检验进行评估。采用 ROBINS-I 和 RoB-2 工具评估偏倚风险。证据质量采用建议分级评估、制定和评价工具进行评估:共选取了五项研究(三项回顾性研究和两项随机对照试验,共包括 1575 例结肠直肠ESD)。与传统ESD组相比,剪刀辅助组的术中穿孔率在统计学上更低(风险差异[RD] -0.02;95% 置信区间[CI] -0.04至-0.01;P = 0.001;I2 = 0%),自我完成率在统计学上更高(RD 0.14;95% CI 0.06,0.23;P = 0.0006;I2 = 0%)。两组的R0切除率、全灶切除率、平均手术时间和延迟出血率均无统计学差异:结论:剪刀刀辅助ESD与传统刀辅助ESD治疗结直肠病变一样有效,术中穿孔率更低,自我完成率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Digestive Endoscopy
Digestive Endoscopy 医学-外科
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
15.10%
发文量
291
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Digestive Endoscopy (DEN) is the official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, the Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy and the World Endoscopy Organization. Digestive Endoscopy serves as a medium for presenting original articles that offer significant contributions to knowledge in the broad field of endoscopy. The Journal also includes Reviews, Original Articles, How I Do It, Case Reports (only of exceptional interest and novelty are accepted), Letters, Techniques and Images, abstracts and news items that may be of interest to endoscopists.
期刊最新文献
Cover Image Issue Information Response to: Site of puncture in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy: Does it change diagnostic outcome? Issue Information Cover Image
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1