Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus local excision for early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and local excision (LE) are minimally invasive procedures that can be used to treat early rectal cancer. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A systematic review was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and LE. A meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. To perform the statistical analysis, the odds ratio (OR) was used for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. Four studies, involving a total of 307 patients, were identified. The length of hospital stay was longer in the group of patients undergoing LE [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.94; 95% CI -2.85 to -1.02; p < 0.0001]. The combined results of the individual studies showed no significant differences as regards en-bloc resection rate (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.25-2.70; p = 0.74), R0 resection rate (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.62-3.73; p = 0.35), overall complication rate (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26-1.69; p = 0.40), and tumor size (WMD 0.57; 95% CI -3.64 to 4.78; p = 0.79) between ESD and LE. When adopting the fixed effect model which takes into account the study size, ESD was associated with a lower recurrence rate than LE (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.87; p = 0.03), while with the random-effect model the difference was not significant (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.02-2.04; p = 0.17). Over the last decade improvements in technology have improved the technical feasibility of rectal ESD. In specialized centers with highly experienced endoscopists, ESD can provide high-quality en-bloc excision of rectal neoplasms equivalent to traditional local excision.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app