Endoscopic resection of esophageal and gastric submucosal tumors from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) are less-invasive therapeutic alternatives to surgical resection for the removal of esophageal or gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). This study aimed to comparing STER versus ESE for the resection of esophageal and gastric SMTs from the muscularis propria. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines through December 2020. Pooled outcome measures included complete resection, en bloc resection, bleeding, perforation, adverse events, recurrence, procedure duration, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was calculated as well as Peto time-to-event analyses to determine recurrence rate. Results Five retrospective cohort studies (n = 269 STER versus n = 319 ESE) were included. There was no difference in rates of complete resection [RR: 1.01 (95% CI 0.94, 1.07)], en bloc resection [RR: 0.95 (95% CI 0.84, 1.08)], recurrence [OR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.33, 4.16)], and total adverse events [RR: 1.33 (95% CI 0.78, 2.27)]. Specific adverse events including rates of perforation [RR: 0.57 (95% CI 0.12, 2.74)] and bleeding [RR: 1.21 (95% CI 0.30, 4.88)] were not different between STER and ESE. There was a statistical difference when evaluating procedure time, with the STER group presenting significantly larger values [MD: 24.62 min (95% CI 20.04, 29.20)]. Conclusion STER and ESE were associated with similar efficacy and safety; however, ESE was associated with a significantly decreased time to complete the procedure.

Automated summary

The study found that STER and ESE have similar efficacy and safety for the resection of esophageal and gastric submucosal tumors, but ESE is associated with significantly shorter procedure duration. Overall, there were no significant differences between the two methods in terms of complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and total adverse events rate.