Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Jul 7;20(25):8282-7.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i25.8282.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis

Jing Wang  1 , Xiao-Hua Zhang  1 , Jian Ge  1 , Chong-Mei Yang  1 , Ji-Yong Liu  1 , Shu-Lei Zhao  1
Affiliations
Review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis

Jing Wang et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the treatment of colorectal tumors.

Methods: Databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index updated to 2013 were searched to include eligible articles. In the meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were the en bloc resection rate, the histological resection rate and the local recurrence rate. Meanwhile, we also compared the operation time and the incidence of procedure-related complications.

Results: Six trials were identified and a total of 1642 lesions were included. The en bloc resection rate was higher and the local recurrence rate was lower in the ESD group compared with the EMR group (OR = 7.94; 95%CI: 3.96-15.91; OR = 0.09; 95%CI: 0.04-0.19). There was no significant difference in histological resection rate(OR = 1.65; 95%CI: 0.29-9.30) and procedure-related complication rate between the two groups (OR = 1.59; 95%CI: 0.92-2.73). The meta-analysis also showed that ESD was more time consuming than EMR.

Conclusion: Compared with EMR, ESD results in higher en bloc resection rate and lower local recurrence rate for the treatment of colorectal tumors, without increasing the procedure-related complications.

Keywords: Colorectal tumors; Complication; En bloc resection; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Histological resection; Local recurrence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of trial selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection. A: En bloc resection rate; B: Histological resection rate; C: Local recurrence rate; D: Procedural time; E: Procedure-related complications. ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Tamura S, Nakajo K, Yokoyama Y, Ohkawauchi K, Yamada T, Higashidani Y, Miyamoto T, Ueta H, Onishi S. Evaluation of endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading rectal tumors. Endoscopy. 2004;36:306–312. - PubMed
    1. Saito Y, Fujii T, Kondo H, Mukai H, Yokota T, Kozu T, Saito D. Endoscopic treatment for laterally spreading tumors in the colon. Endoscopy. 2001;33:682–686. - PubMed
    1. Białek A, Wiechowska-Kozłowska A, Pertkiewicz J, Karpińska K, Marlicz W, Milkiewicz P, Starzyńska T. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of neoplastic lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:1953–1961. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tamegai Y, Saito Y, Masaki N, Hinohara C, Oshima T, Kogure E, Liu Y, Uemura N, Saito K. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: a safe technique for colorectal tumors. Endoscopy. 2007;39:418–422. - PubMed
    1. Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N, Kodashima S, Muraki Y, Ono S, Yamamichi N, Tateishi A, Oka M, Ogura K, et al. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 200 consecutive cases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:678–683; quiz 645. - PubMed