Background and Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic resection technique for lesions suspicious of superficial malignancy. It is performed using an ESD knife on its own (standard technique) or by the sequential use of a knife and a snare (hybrid technique). The experience with these techniques is different in Asian and non-Asian countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on colorectal ESD. Methods: Electronic databases were searched up to August 2016 for studies evaluating R0, en bloc resection, and adverse event rates of both techniques for the treatment of colorectal lesions. Proportions were pooled by a random effects model. Results: Ninety-seven studies (71 performed in Asia) evaluated the standard technique and 12 studies (7 in Asia) the hybrid technique. The R0 resection rate of the standard technique was 82.9%, and it was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries: 71.3% versus 85.6%. The en bloc resection rate was 91% and was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries (81.2% vs 93%, respectively). Surgery was needed in 1.1% of the ESD-related adverse events, with a significant difference between non-Asian and Asian countries (3.1% vs 0.8%). The R0 and en bloc resection rates with the hybrid technique were significantly lower than those achieved with the standard technique: 60.6% and 68.4%, respectively, with similar adverse event rates. Conclusions: In non-Asian countries the standard ESD technique is still failing to achieve acceptable levels of performance. The hybrid technique showed low R0 resection rates and should not be considered as an adequate alternative to the standard technique.

Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

FUCCIO, LORENZO;FARIOLI, ANDREA;CUCCHETTI, ALESSANDRO;Frazzoni, Leonardo;BAZZOLI, FRANCO;
2017

Abstract

Background and Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic resection technique for lesions suspicious of superficial malignancy. It is performed using an ESD knife on its own (standard technique) or by the sequential use of a knife and a snare (hybrid technique). The experience with these techniques is different in Asian and non-Asian countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on colorectal ESD. Methods: Electronic databases were searched up to August 2016 for studies evaluating R0, en bloc resection, and adverse event rates of both techniques for the treatment of colorectal lesions. Proportions were pooled by a random effects model. Results: Ninety-seven studies (71 performed in Asia) evaluated the standard technique and 12 studies (7 in Asia) the hybrid technique. The R0 resection rate of the standard technique was 82.9%, and it was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries: 71.3% versus 85.6%. The en bloc resection rate was 91% and was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries (81.2% vs 93%, respectively). Surgery was needed in 1.1% of the ESD-related adverse events, with a significant difference between non-Asian and Asian countries (3.1% vs 0.8%). The R0 and en bloc resection rates with the hybrid technique were significantly lower than those achieved with the standard technique: 60.6% and 68.4%, respectively, with similar adverse event rates. Conclusions: In non-Asian countries the standard ESD technique is still failing to achieve acceptable levels of performance. The hybrid technique showed low R0 resection rates and should not be considered as an adequate alternative to the standard technique.
Fuccio, Lorenzo; Hassan, Cesare; Ponchon, Thierry; Mandolesi, Daniele; Farioli, Andrea; Cucchetti, Alessandro; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Bhandari, Pradeep; Bellisario, Cristina; Bazzoli, Franco; Repici, Alessandro
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/600706
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 51
  • Scopus 120
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 121
social impact