Suppr超能文献

水下内镜黏膜切除术整块切除率高于传统内镜黏膜切除术:一项荟萃分析。

Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis.

机构信息

Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine - Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, ''Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Department of Gastroenterology Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

出版信息

Dig Liver Dis. 2021 Aug;53(8):958-964. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2021.05.001. Epub 2021 May 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence.

RESULTS

Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P<0.0001; I²=84%, GRADE: Very low]. This effect was more prominent regarding resection of polyps sized ≥20 mm compared to polyps <20 mm [RR(95%CI):1.64(1.22-2.20) vs. 1.10(0.98-1.23)]. Post-resection recurrence [RR(95%CI):0.52(0.28-0.94);GRADE:Low] was lower significantly in U-EMR group. In contrast, no significant difference was detected between U-EMR and C-EMR regarding complete resection [RR(95%CI): 1.06(0.91-1.24) GRADE:Very low] and adverse events occurrence[RR(95%CI):1.00 (0.72-1.39); GRADE:Low].

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of RCTs supports that U-EMR resection achieves higher rate of en bloc resection compared to conventional EMR. This effect is driven when resecting large(≥20 mm) polyps.

摘要

目的

先前的荟萃分析包括非随机研究表明,与传统内镜黏膜切除术(C-EMR)相比,水下内镜黏膜切除术(U-EMR)在息肉切除术结果方面具有轻微优势。我们通过仅分析随机对照试验(RCT)来评估 U-EMR 与 C-EMR 治疗结直肠息肉的有效性和安全性。

材料和方法

检索了截至 2020 年 11 月的 PubMed 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中发表的 RCTs,评估了 U-EMR 与 C-EMR 在整块切除、内镜切除后腺瘤复发、完全切除、不良事件发生率和切除时间差异方面的情况。还检索了消化疾病周、欧洲联合胃肠病学周和 ESGE 日会议的摘要。结果的效应大小表示为风险比(RR;95%置信区间[CI])或均数差(MD;95%CI)。使用 I²检验来量化异质性,而使用推荐评估、制定和评估(GRADE)分级来评估证据强度。

结果

纳入了 6 项 RCT,分析了 1157 例结直肠息肉切除术(U-EMR589;C-EMR568)的结果。与 C-EMR 相比,U-EMR 整块切除率显著更高[RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58);Chi²检验用于异质性=30.43,P<0.0001;I²=84%,GRADE:非常低]。对于大小≥20mm 的息肉切除,这种效果更为明显[RR(95%CI):1.64(1.22-2.20)与 1.10(0.98-1.23)]。U-EMR 组术后复发率[RR(95%CI):0.52(0.28-0.94)]显著降低。相比之下,U-EMR 与 C-EMR 之间在完全切除[RR(95%CI):1.06(0.91-1.24)]和不良事件发生[RR(95%CI):1.00(0.72-1.39)]方面无显著差异。

结论

RCT 的荟萃分析支持 U-EMR 切除比传统 EMR 切除整块切除率更高。当切除较大(≥20mm)息肉时,这种效果更为明显。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验