4.5 Review

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

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 405-416

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/den.12597

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.5
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