大肠息肉的内镜黏膜切除术和全层切除术联合治疗:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1080/00365521.2024.2349641
Butros Fakhoury, Iyiad Alabdul Razzak, Rebecca Morin, Sandeep Krishnan, Syed Mahmood
{"title":"大肠息肉的内镜黏膜切除术和全层切除术联合治疗:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Butros Fakhoury, Iyiad Alabdul Razzak, Rebecca Morin, Sandeep Krishnan, Syed Mahmood","doi":"10.1080/00365521.2024.2349641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I<sup>2</sup> = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I<sup>2</sup> = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I<sup>2</sup> = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I<sup>2</sup> = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I<sup>2</sup>=20.32).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21461,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"798-807"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Butros Fakhoury, Iyiad Alabdul Razzak, Rebecca Morin, Sandeep Krishnan, Syed Mahmood\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365521.2024.2349641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I<sup>2</sup> = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I<sup>2</sup> = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I<sup>2</sup> = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I<sup>2</sup> = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I<sup>2</sup>=20.32).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"798-807\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2349641\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2349641","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:内镜下粘膜切除术(EMR)与内镜下全厚度切除术(EFTR)联合应用是一种新兴技术,已被开发用于切除大于2厘米的结直肠息肉。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以评估这种用于切除大肠病变的技术:我们对从开始到 2023 年 8 月的多个电子数据库进行了全面检索,以确定报道混合 FTR 的研究。采用随机效应模型计算总体汇总的技术成功率、宏观完全切除率、游离垂直边缘切除率、不良事件和随访复发率:共有 8 个研究组的 244 名患者(30% 为女性)参与了分析。汇总的技术成功率为 97%(95% CI 88%-100%,I2 = 79.93%)。宏观完全切除率为 95%(95% CI 为 90%-99%,I2 = 49.98),游离垂直边缘切除率为 88%(95% CI 为 78%-96%,I2 = 63.32)。总体不良事件发生率为2%(95% CI 0%-5%,I2=11.64),复发率为6%(95% CI 2%-12%,I2=20.32):结论:EMR与EFTR联合用于切除大而复杂的结直肠腺瘤既有效又安全,为高手术风险患者提供了一个很好的选择。观察到的地区异质性表明,不同地区的操作者专业知识和行业培训认证的差异可能会影响手术效果。需要进行比较研究,直接比较 EMR 与 EFTR 的组合与 ESD 和手术切除等替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up.

Results: A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32).

Conclusion: Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
222
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology is one of the most important journals for international medical research in gastroenterology and hepatology with international contributors, Editorial Board, and distribution
期刊最新文献
High neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio at Helicobacter pylori eradication increases the risk of eradication failure and post-eradication gastric cancer. Novelty in the gut: a review of the gastrointestinal manifestations of syphilis. Effects of an anti-inflammatory diet (AID) on maternal and neonatal health outcomes in pregnant Chinese patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab (IFX). Pyloric index, a new parameter: predicting perioperative prognosis in neonates with hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. Correlation of gastrointestinal symptom rating scale and frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease with endoscopic findings.
×
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