Short-term outcomes of traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies
Mengting Xia,Yunfeng Zhou,Jiajie Yu,Wenwen Chen,Xiaotao Huang,Juan Liao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-019-1639-z
2019-01-01
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
Abstract:Background In recent years, some traction-assisted approaches have been introduced to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures by reducing the procedure time and risks related to the procedure. However, the relative advantages of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (T-ESD) are still being debated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of T-ESD for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library up to March 31, 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing T-ESD and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. The main endpoints are en bloc resection, complete resection, procedure time, perforation, and delayed bleeding. Pooled risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio (OR), and mean difference (MD) were calculated to compare T-ESD and C-ESD. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018108135. Results A total of 7 RCTs with 1007 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the T-ESD and C-ESD groups in the pooled estimate of en bloc resection, complete resection, and delayed bleeding (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.99, 1.01, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.66; RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.98, 1.03, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.81; OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.48, 1.86, I 2 = 19%, P = 0.87,respectively). The pooled estimate indicated that the procedure time was significantly shorter in the T-ESD group (MD = − 16.19, 95% CI − 29.24, − 3.13, I 2 = 87%, P = 0.02) than in the C-ESD group. Compared to C-ESD, T-ESD was associated with lower incidence of perforation (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.91, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.03). Conclusions T-ESD is a safe and effective treatment option with a low perforation rate and shorter procedure time than C-ESD for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Future multi-center (including European populations), randomized controlled trials of larger sample size and long-term outcomes of T-ESD are required.