» Articles » PMID: 22884100

A Meta-analysis of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and EMR for Early Gastric Cancer

Overview
Date 2012 Aug 14
PMID 22884100
Citations 132
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed to overcome the problem caused by incomplete resection by conventional EMR for early gastric cancer. However, the technique of ESD had a relative higher incidence rate of complications such as bleeding and perforation because of its large wound incidence and difficulties.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR for early gastric cancer.

Design: We made an overall strategy to search various databases both electronically and manually and assessed the quality of selected articles according to the inclusion and exclusion standard.

Setting: Meta-analysis of 9 retrospective studies.

Patients: 3548 lesions (ESD 1495; EMR 2053).

Intervention: ESD or EMR.

Main Outcome Measurements: En bloc resection rate, histologic curative resection rate, complications, recurrence rate.

Results: Nine retrospective studies were identified (7 full text and 2 abstracts). A total of 3548 lesions were enrolled (ESD 1495; EMR 2053). The mean time required for resection was longer for ESD than for EMR (weighted mean difference 59.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16.8-102.0); the en bloc rate in the ESD group was significantly higher than that in the EMR group (OR 9.69; 95% CI, 7.74-12.13), and so was the total histologically complete resection rate (OR 5.66; 95% CI, 2.92-10.96). The ESD group had lower recurrence frequency (OR 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.18). The perforation rate was higher in the ESD group (OR 4.67; 95% CI, 2.77-7.87), whereas the bleeding incidences were similar between the two groups.

Limitations: Heterogeneity was present among the studies.

Conclusion: Compared with EMR for early gastric cancer, ESD showed considerable advantages regarding en bloc resection rate, histologically complete resection rate, and local recurrence even for small lesions, but it had the disadvantages of higher complication rates for perforation. All of the results mentioned should be confirmed by well-designed, randomized, controlled trials from more countries, with larger samples and long enough follow-up periods.

Citing Articles

Determining ED90 of Flumazenil for Selective Respiratory Distress Improvement Using Remimazolam During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Neoplasms: A Prospective Study.

Kim H, Jung D, Lee S, Kim N, Kim S, Ji Y Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(2).

PMID: 39858103 PMC: 11763922. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17020321.


Endoscopic suturing for mucosal defect closure following endoscopic submucosal dissection: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Niu C, Zhang J, Farooq U, Zahid S, Okolo P Endosc Int Open. 2024; 12(10):E1150-E1159.

PMID: 39398447 PMC: 11469170. DOI: 10.1055/a-2411-8724.


Analysis of lens cloudiness during endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures: Effects of a novel lens cleaner.

Fujii T, Watanabe S, Uga M, Matsui Y, Sakaki K, Matsukawa N DEN Open. 2024; 5(1):e416.

PMID: 39077550 PMC: 11284122. DOI: 10.1002/deo2.416.


Gastric Cancer: Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention.

Ramachandran R, Grantham T, Parvataneni S, Budh D, Gollapalli S, Reddy M J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2024; 14(2):49-57.

PMID: 38966500 PMC: 11221451. DOI: 10.55729/2000-9666.1304.


Associations between Clinicopathological Characteristics and Intraoperative Opioid Requirements during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Monitored Anesthesia Care: A Retrospective Study.

Kim H, Jung D, Lee S, Lee Y, Lee S, Kim G J Clin Med. 2024; 13(11).

PMID: 38892830 PMC: 11172858. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113119.