Meta-analysis comparing differing methods of endoscopic therapy for colorectal lesions

Table 3 The outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal lesions

Ref.	En-bloc resection rate (%)		Piecemeal resection rate (%)		R0 lesion margins (%)		Endoscopic completeness rate (%)		Bleeding rate EMR:ESD (%)	Perforation rate EMR:ESD (%)	Total complication rate (%)	Surgery post EMR/ESD (EMR:ESD cases)
	EMR	ESD	EMR	ESD	EMR	ESD	EMR	ESD				Due to perfor-ation	Due to deep invasion
Tajika et al[22]	48.1	83.5	52.9	16.5	39.4	83.5	97	98.8	2.9:2.4	0:5.9	2.9:8.2	0:3	0
Lee et al[23]	42.9	92.7	57.1	7.3	32.9	87.6	99.1	90.8	0:0.6	0:8	5.7:11.5	0:2	9:26
Kobayashi et al[24]	37.5	92.9	62.5	7.1	-	-	98.2	100	1.8:7.1	0:10.7	1.8:17.9	0	0
Saito et al[25]	33	84	67	16	-	-	98.7	100	3.1:1.4	1.3:6.2	4.4:7.6	0	0
Kim et al[26]	72.4	80	27.6	20	-	-	100	100	-	-	3.9:6.7	-	-
Tamegai et al[19]	0	98.6	100	1.4	-	95.6	100	90.1	-:0	-:1.4	-:1.4	-	-:7

NB total complication rate includes coagulation syndrome. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.