Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs transanal endoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic submucosal dissection (TES) are widely employed surgical techniques. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of both remain inconclusive.

AIM

To comprehensively analyze and discern differences in surgical outcomes between ESD and TES.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception till August 2023. We analyzed outcomes including recurrence rate, en bloc resection, R0 resection rate, perforation rate, procedure length, and hospital stay length applying a random-effects inverse-variance model. We assessed publication bias by conducting an Egger's regression test and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

We pooled data from 11 studies involving 1013 participants. We found similar recurrence rates, with a pooled odds ratio of 0.545 (95%CI: 0.176-1.687). En bloc resection, R0 resection, and perforation rate values were also similar for both ESD and TES. The pooled analysis for procedure length indicated a mean difference of -4.19 min (95%CI: -22.73 to 14.35), and the hospital stay was on average shorter for ESDs by about 0.789 days (95%CI: -1.671 to 0.093).

CONCLUSION

Both ESD and TES displayed similar efficacy and safety profiles across multiple outcomes. Our findings show that individualized patient and surgeon preferences, alongside specific clinical contexts, can be considered when selecting between these two techniques.