{"title":"内镜粘膜切除术治疗结直肠肿瘤的有效性和安全性：系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yi Chen, Zhengjie Wu","doi":"10.1080/13645706.2024.2440403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques have been reported for colorectal tumors. Precutting-EMR (PEMR) is a modification wherein a circumferential mucosal incision is made around a lesion to facilitate en bloc resection. This review compared the efficacy and safety of PEMR with conventional EMR for colorectal lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies available before February 15, 2024. This systematic review and meta-analysis were recorded in PROSPERO, identified as CRD42024509143.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and eight studies underwent screening of which seven studies were found eligible. We found no significant difference in en bloc resection rates but complete resection rates were significantly better with PEMR. The duration of the procedure was significantly longer with PEMR as compared to EMR. There was no difference in the risk of delayed bleeding and recurrence between the two groups but the risk of perforation was significantly increased with PEMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of PEMR for colorectal lesions can improve complete resection rates, albeit at the cost of increased duration of the procedure and higher perforation rates compared to conventional EMR. PEMR may also have a tendency of better en bloc resection rates which needs to be confirmed by further studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":18537,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of precutting-endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yi Chen, Zhengjie Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13645706.2024.2440403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques have been reported for colorectal tumors. Precutting-EMR (PEMR) is a modification wherein a circumferential mucosal incision is made around a lesion to facilitate en bloc resection. This review compared the efficacy and safety of PEMR with conventional EMR for colorectal lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies available before February 15, 2024. This systematic review and meta-analysis were recorded in PROSPERO, identified as CRD42024509143.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and eight studies underwent screening of which seven studies were found eligible. We found no significant difference in en bloc resection rates but complete resection rates were significantly better with PEMR. The duration of the procedure was significantly longer with PEMR as compared to EMR. There was no difference in the risk of delayed bleeding and recurrence between the two groups but the risk of perforation was significantly increased with PEMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of PEMR for colorectal lesions can improve complete resection rates, albeit at the cost of increased duration of the procedure and higher perforation rates compared to conventional EMR. PEMR may also have a tendency of better en bloc resection rates which needs to be confirmed by further studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2024.2440403\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2024.2440403","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：有报道称，有几种改良的内镜粘膜切除术（EMR）可用于结直肠肿瘤。预切-EMR（PEMR）是一种改良技术，即在病变周围做一个环形粘膜切口，以便于进行全切。本综述比较了PEMR与传统EMR治疗结直肠病变的有效性和安全性：方法：检索了 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Web of Science 上 2024 年 2 月 15 日之前的对比研究。本系统综述和荟萃分析已录入 PROSPERO，编号为 CRD42024509143：结果：共筛选出 28 项研究，其中 7 项符合条件。我们发现全块切除率没有明显差异，但完全切除率明显优于 PEMR。与EMR相比，PEMR的手术时间明显更长。两组患者发生延迟出血和复发的风险没有差异，但PEMR患者发生穿孔的风险明显增加：结论：与传统的EMR相比，使用PEMR治疗结直肠病变可提高完全切除率，但代价是手术时间延长，穿孔率升高。PEMR也有可能提高全切率，这需要进一步研究证实。
The efficacy and safety of precutting-endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Several modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques have been reported for colorectal tumors. Precutting-EMR (PEMR) is a modification wherein a circumferential mucosal incision is made around a lesion to facilitate en bloc resection. This review compared the efficacy and safety of PEMR with conventional EMR for colorectal lesions.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies available before February 15, 2024. This systematic review and meta-analysis were recorded in PROSPERO, identified as CRD42024509143.
Results: Two hundred and eight studies underwent screening of which seven studies were found eligible. We found no significant difference in en bloc resection rates but complete resection rates were significantly better with PEMR. The duration of the procedure was significantly longer with PEMR as compared to EMR. There was no difference in the risk of delayed bleeding and recurrence between the two groups but the risk of perforation was significantly increased with PEMR.
Conclusions: The use of PEMR for colorectal lesions can improve complete resection rates, albeit at the cost of increased duration of the procedure and higher perforation rates compared to conventional EMR. PEMR may also have a tendency of better en bloc resection rates which needs to be confirmed by further studies.
期刊介绍：
Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies (MITAT) is an international forum for endoscopic surgeons, interventional radiologists and industrial instrument manufacturers. It is the official journal of the Society for Medical Innovation and Technology (SMIT) whose membership includes representatives from a broad spectrum of medical specialities, instrument manufacturing and research. The journal brings the latest developments and innovations in minimally invasive therapy to its readers. What makes Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies unique is that we publish one or two special issues each year, which are devoted to a specific theme. Key topics covered by the journal include: interventional radiology, endoscopic surgery, imaging technology, manipulators and robotics for surgery and education and training for MIS.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
