Endoscopy · 2026
Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic surgery in rectal neoplasms: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and trial sequential analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saeed Aamir, Baidoo Leonard, Akbar Hina, Kamal Faisal, Radlinski Mark, Tombazzi Claudio A, Parsi Mansour A, Mahmood Sultan, Yang Dennis, Draganov Peter, Hayat Maham
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established organ-preserving approaches, but comparative randomized evidence remains limited. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared TES and ESD in rectal neoplasms.
METHODS: Multiple databases were searched from inception through to 29 March 2026. Outcomes of interest included en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, procedure time, recurrence, and hospital stay. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Five RCTs with 624 patients (TES 307, ESD 317) were included. No statistically significant differences were observed in en bloc resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.10; P = 0.55; I 2 = 73%), R0 resection (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.90 to 1.10; P = 0.95; I 2 = 60%), recurrence (RR 1.73, 95%CI 0.53 to 5.67; P = 0.36; I 2 = 6%), bleeding (RR 0.50, 95%CI 0.10 to 2.63; P = 0.41; I 2 = 68%), perforation (RR 0.22, 95%CI 0.01 to 4.49; P = 0.33), or hospital stay (mean difference [MD] 0.57 days, 95%CI -0.52 to 1.67; P = 0.30; I 2 = 94%) between the TES and ESD approaches. TES had a shorter procedure time compared with ESD (MD -21.93 minutes, 95%CI -28.22 to -15.64; P < 0.001; I 2 = 52%). Trial sequential analysis for bleeding, perforation, and recurrence found cumulative Z curves crossed neither monitoring boundaries nor the diversity-adjusted required information size, leaving the evidence inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs found no statistically significant differences between ESD and TES for short-term oncologic outcomes in selected rectal neoplasms; the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes.
METHODS: Multiple databases were searched from inception through to 29 March 2026. Outcomes of interest included en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, procedure time, recurrence, and hospital stay. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Five RCTs with 624 patients (TES 307, ESD 317) were included. No statistically significant differences were observed in en bloc resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.10; P = 0.55; I 2 = 73%), R0 resection (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.90 to 1.10; P = 0.95; I 2 = 60%), recurrence (RR 1.73, 95%CI 0.53 to 5.67; P = 0.36; I 2 = 6%), bleeding (RR 0.50, 95%CI 0.10 to 2.63; P = 0.41; I 2 = 68%), perforation (RR 0.22, 95%CI 0.01 to 4.49; P = 0.33), or hospital stay (mean difference [MD] 0.57 days, 95%CI -0.52 to 1.67; P = 0.30; I 2 = 94%) between the TES and ESD approaches. TES had a shorter procedure time compared with ESD (MD -21.93 minutes, 95%CI -28.22 to -15.64; P < 0.001; I 2 = 52%). Trial sequential analysis for bleeding, perforation, and recurrence found cumulative Z curves crossed neither monitoring boundaries nor the diversity-adjusted required information size, leaving the evidence inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs found no statistically significant differences between ESD and TES for short-term oncologic outcomes in selected rectal neoplasms; the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes.