Huang LW, Zhong Y. Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs transanal endoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(1): 95-106 [PMID: 38292620 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i1.95]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Ying Zhong, MD, Doctor, Department of Gastroenterology, Huzhou Third Municipal Hospital, the Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou University, No. 2088 Tiaoxi East Road, Wuxing District, Huzhou 313000, Zhejiang Province, China. chenjinshijin2@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Systematic Reviews
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 Clin Cases. Jan 6, 2024; 12(1): 95-106 Published online Jan 6, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i1.95
Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs transanal endoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Long-Wu Huang, Ying Zhong
Long-Wu Huang, Ying Zhong, Department of Gastroenterology, Huzhou Third Municipal Hospital, the Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou 313000, Zhejiang Province, China
Author contributions: Huang LW conceived and designed the study; Huang LW and Zhong Y collected the data and performed the analysis; Zhong Y was involved in the writing of the manuscript and is responsible for the integrity of the study; all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare no conflict of interest.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (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: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Ying Zhong, MD, Doctor, Department of Gastroenterology, Huzhou Third Municipal Hospital, the Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou University, No. 2088 Tiaoxi East Road, Wuxing District, Huzhou 313000, Zhejiang Province, China. chenjinshijin2@163.com
Received: October 13, 2023 Peer-review started: October 13, 2023 First decision: November 28, 2023 Revised: December 12, 2023 Accepted: December 18, 2023 Article in press: December 18, 2023 Published online: January 6, 2024 Processing time: 81 Days and 1.9 Hours
Core Tip
Core Tip: This meta-analysis compares Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) and Transanal Endoscopic Surgery (TES) for rectal tumours, focusing on recurrence rates, resection efficacies, and procedural outcomes. Our findings reveal no significant differences in recurrence or resection rates between ESD and TES, highlighting their comparable efficacies. However, the methods differ in anaesthesia requirements, impacting patient experience and recovery. With substantial heterogeneity in study designs and patient populations, our analysis underscores the need for standardized multicentric studies. This comprehensive comparison provides crucial insights for clinicians in selecting the most appropriate surgical technique based on tumour characteristics, patient profiles, and institutional resources.
