Meta-analysis of underwater vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions

Sahib Singh,Babu P. Mohan,Rakesh Vinayek,Sudhir Dutta,Dushyant Singh Dahiya,Sumant Inamdar,Vishnu Charan Suresh Kumar,Ganesh Aswath,Neil Sharma,Douglas G. Adler
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.10.029
IF: 10.396
2024-10-21
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Abstract:Background and aims Effect of underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (UESD) on clinical outcomes as compared with conventional ESD (CESD) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data. Methods Online databases were searched for studies comparing UESD to CESD for colorectal lesions. The outcomes of interest were en bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time (min), dissection speed (mm 2 /min), and adverse events. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results A total of 7 studies with 1,401 patients (n=452 UESD, n=949 CESD) were included. The mean age was 69 years and 57% patients were males. UESD had both lesser procedure time (SMD -1.33, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.32, p = 0.010) and greater dissection speed (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.68, p = 0.003) when compared with CESD. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to en bloc resection (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.41), R0 resection (OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 7.05), delayed bleeding (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.74), perforation (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.00) and post resection electrocoagulation syndrome (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.42). Discussion UESD was faster in patients with colorectal lesions, but had comparable rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection and adverse events when compared with CESD.
gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?