Patel N, Alexander J, Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T, Darzi A, Teare J. Meta-analysis comparing differing methods of endoscopic therapy for colorectal lesions. World J Meta-Anal 2016; 4(2): 44-54 [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v4.i2.44]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Nisha Patel, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, Clinical Research Fellow, Department of Gastroenterology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom. nishakpatel1@gmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Meta-Analysis
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Meta-Anal. Apr 26, 2016; 4(2): 44-54 Published online Apr 26, 2016. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v4.i2.44
Meta-analysis comparing differing methods of endoscopic therapy for colorectal lesions
Nisha Patel, James Alexander, Hutan Ashrafian, Thanos Athanasiou, Ara Darzi, Julian Teare
Nisha Patel, James Alexander, Julian Teare, Department of Gastroenterology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom
Hutan Ashrafian, Thanos Athanasiou, Ara Darzi, Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, London, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Patel N designed this paper; Patel N, Alexander J and Ashrafian H analysed and interpreted the data; Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T, Darzi A and Teare J criticised revision of the article for important intellectual content; all authors have approved the final draft submitted.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors deny any conflict of interest.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Nisha Patel, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, Clinical Research Fellow, Department of Gastroenterology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom. nishakpatel1@gmail.com
Telephone: +44-207-3717158 Fax: +44-203-3126950
Received: May 19, 2015 Peer-review started: May 20, 2015 First decision: June 19, 2015 Revised: July 18, 2015 Accepted: November 9, 2015 Article in press: January 4, 2016 Published online: April 26, 2016
Core Tip
Core tip: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the conventional resection method of colorectal polyps. However certain lesions such as large sessile polyps can be challenging. Piecemeal resection has been shown to result in a high recurrence rate requiring further endoscopic sessions or surgery. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still at a relatively early stage, there are very few studies directly comparing the two modalities, few randomised controlled trials and fewer still reporting longer-term outcomes. This meta-analysis reports mid-term follow-up outcomes of colorectal ESD and EMR. ESD demonstrates higher en-bloc resection rates and lower mid-term recurrence rates compared to colorectal EMR albeit with higher complication rates.
