• Ce Zhou, Furong Zhang, and Yinghua We.
• From the Department of Proctology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
• Ann Saudi Med. 2023 May 1; 43 (3): 179195179-195.

BackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are surgical methods used for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) with diameters of ≤ 10 mm. However, which method has a higher performance remains uncertain.ObjectivesEvaluate which of the two methods shows a higher performance.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: Data from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 12 April 2022. Outcomes, including complete resection, en bloc resection, recurrence, perforation, bleeding, and procedure time, were pooled by 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed- or random-effects model.Main Outcome MeasuresComplete resection, en bloc resection, and recurrence.Sample Size18 studies, including 1168 patients were included in the study.ResultsEighteen retrospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were no statistical differences in the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, recurrence, perforation, and bleeding rates between EMR and ESD. However, a statistical difference was detected in the procedure time; EMR had a significantly shorter time (MD=-17.47, 95% CI=-22.31 - -12.62, P<.00001).ConclusionsEMR and ESD had similar efficacies and safety profiles in resectioning rectal NETs ≤ 10 mm. Even so, the advantages of EMR included a shorter operation time and expenditure. Thus, with respect to health economics, EMR outperformed ESD.LimitationMost of these studies are retrospective cohort studies instead of RCTs.Conflict Of InterestNone.

18 keywords...

hide…