4.3 Review

Efficacy and safety of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors with more than 1-year' follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 397-406

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1591500

关键词

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection; gastrointestinal submucosal tumors; thoracoscopic enucleation; systematic review; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is a novel therapeutic approach for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors (SMTs) especially for tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Presently, several studies have reported the efficacy and safety of STER for SMTs. Therefore, we conducted this study to review the clinical outcomes of STER with more than 1-year' follow-up duration.Materials and methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched on November 2018 to identify studies reporting STER for SMTs. Weighted pooled rates were calculated for en bloc resection, complete resection and adverse event (AE). Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare STER with thoracoscopic enucleation (TE).Results: A total of 701 patients with 728 lesions from 12 original studies were review. Pooled WPR for en bloc resection of STER was 86.3% (95% CI: 74.5-93.1%), (I-2=82.5). Pooled WPR for complete resection of STER was 97.7% (95% CI: 92.8-99.3%), (I-2=77.6). WPR for AE was 18.3% (95% CI: 9.7-31.6%), (I-2=90.6%). Two studies with 292 patients compared the performance of STER with TE. Pooled RR for en bloc resection was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.95-1.09). Pooled RR for complete resection was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.98-1.03). Pooled RR for AE was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.33-2.05).Conclusions: Our study showed that STER has relatively long-term efficacy for treating upper gastrointestinal SMTs, and the incidence of AE was not low for STER, but all of them can be managed conservatively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据