4.5 Review

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Systematic review of mid-term clinical outcomes

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 405-416

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/den.12597

Keywords

colorectal; colonic polyp; endoscopic mucosal resection; endoscopic submucosal dissection; colorectal lesion

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0510-10186] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With a drive towards minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is now gaining popularity. In a number of East Asian countries, ESD is now the treatment of choice for early non-metastatic gastric cancer, but the outcomes of ESD for colorectal lesions are unclear. The present review summarizes the mid-term outcomes of colorectal ESD including complication and recurrence rates. A systematic literature search was done in May 2014, identifying 20 publications reporting the outcomes of colorectal ESD which were included in this review. En-bloc resection rates, complete (R0) resection rates, endoscopic clearance rates, complication and recurrences rates were analyzed. Statistical pooling was done to calculate weighted means using random effects modeling. Twenty studies reporting the outcomes of 3060 colorectal ESD procedures were reported. Overall weighted en-bloc resection rate was 89% (95% CI: 83-94%), R0 resection rate 76% (95% CI: 69-83%), endoscopic clearance rate 94% (95% CI: 90-97%) and recurrence rate 1% (95% CI: 0.5-2%). Studies that followed up patients for over 1 year were found to have an en-bloc resection rate of 91% (95% CI: 86-96%), R0 resection rate of 81% (95% CI: 75-88%), endoscopic clearance rate 93% (95% CI: 90-97%) and recurrence rate of 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4-1%). Colorectal ESD can be carried out effectively and safely with a 1% recurrence rate. Further studies with longer follow-up periods are required to determine whether colorectal ESD is a viable alternative to conventional surgical therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available