Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Igor Valdeir Gomes de Sousa, Alexandre Moraes Bestetti, Diego Paul Cadena-Aguirre, Angelo So Taa Kum, Paulo Ferreira Mega, Pedro Henrique Veras Ayres da Silva, Nelson Tomio Miyajima, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
{"title":"Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Igor Valdeir Gomes de Sousa,&nbsp;Alexandre Moraes Bestetti,&nbsp;Diego Paul Cadena-Aguirre,&nbsp;Angelo So Taa Kum,&nbsp;Paulo Ferreira Mega,&nbsp;Pedro Henrique Veras Ayres da Silva,&nbsp;Nelson Tomio Miyajima,&nbsp;Wanderley Marques Bernardo,&nbsp;Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura","doi":"10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aim</h3><div>Minimally invasive techniques offer alternatives to conventional surgery in the treatment of early-stage colorectal cancer, reducing morbidity. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) and Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) are widely used, while Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) is gaining attention for its ability to achieve complete resection with low recurrence rates. This study compares the efficacy and safety of ESD with Transanal Endoscopic Surgery (TES).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies involving patients with endoscopically resectable rectal lesions. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and LILACS. Outcomes included recurrence rate, complete resection, en bloc resection, hospital stay, procedure time, and complication rate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The analysis included ten observational studies and one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) involving 1,094 patients. No significant differences were found in terms of recurrence rate, en bloc resection, R0 resection, and complications between techniques. The RCT showed a shorter procedure time in the TES (RD = 16.6; 95 % CI 8.88 to 24.32; p &lt; 0.0001), whereas observational studies found no significant difference. In addition, observational studies found a shorter hospital stay duration in the ESD (MD = -1.22; 95 % CI -2.11 to -0.33; I<sup>2</sup> = 82 %; p &lt; 0.007), while the RCT found no difference.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>ESD and TES are safe and effective for the treatment of early-stage rectal tumors. Rates of local recurrence, block resection, R0 resection, complications, and procedure time were similar. However, the RCT showed a shorter procedure time with TES, while observational studies showed a shorter hospital stay with ESD.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10472,"journal":{"name":"Clinics","volume":"80 ","pages":"Article 100613"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1807593225000390","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim

Minimally invasive techniques offer alternatives to conventional surgery in the treatment of early-stage colorectal cancer, reducing morbidity. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) and Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) are widely used, while Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) is gaining attention for its ability to achieve complete resection with low recurrence rates. This study compares the efficacy and safety of ESD with Transanal Endoscopic Surgery (TES).

Methods

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies involving patients with endoscopically resectable rectal lesions. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and LILACS. Outcomes included recurrence rate, complete resection, en bloc resection, hospital stay, procedure time, and complication rate.

Results

The analysis included ten observational studies and one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) involving 1,094 patients. No significant differences were found in terms of recurrence rate, en bloc resection, R0 resection, and complications between techniques. The RCT showed a shorter procedure time in the TES (RD = 16.6; 95 % CI 8.88 to 24.32; p < 0.0001), whereas observational studies found no significant difference. In addition, observational studies found a shorter hospital stay duration in the ESD (MD = -1.22; 95 % CI -2.11 to -0.33; I2 = 82 %; p < 0.007), while the RCT found no difference.

Conclusion

ESD and TES are safe and effective for the treatment of early-stage rectal tumors. Rates of local recurrence, block resection, R0 resection, complications, and procedure time were similar. However, the RCT showed a shorter procedure time with TES, while observational studies showed a shorter hospital stay with ESD.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinics
Clinics 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
129
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: CLINICS is an electronic journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles in continuous flow, of interest to clinicians and researchers in the medical sciences. CLINICS complies with the policies of funding agencies which request or require deposition of the published articles that they fund into publicly available databases. CLINICS supports the position of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on trial registration.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信