Scholarlink

Purpose <p>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with those of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for rectal tumors extending to the dentate line (RTDLs).</p> Methods <p>We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases up to July 2025 for studies that reported the clinical outcomes of EMR or ESD for RTDLs.</p> Results <p>Fifteen studies (237 for EMR and 564 for ESD) were included in this meta-analysis. The en bloc resection rate (0.961 vs. 0.097; p = 0.000) was significantly greater in the ESD group than in the EMR group, and the local recurrence rate (0.023 vs. 0.188; p = 0.000) was significantly lower in the ESD group. No significant differences in the complete resection rate (0.793 vs. 0.823, p = 0.869) were noted between the ESD and EMR groups. In terms of adverse events, there were no differences in the postoperative bleeding rate (0.067 vs. 0.082; p = 0.677), perforation rate (0 vs.0; p = 0.605) or stricture rate (0.022 vs. 0.042; p = 0.378) between the ESD and EMR groups.</p> Conclusion <p>ESD and EMR are effective and safe treatments for RTDLs; however, compared with EMR, ESD is associated with a higher en bloc resection rate and a lower local recurrence rate.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for the treatment of rectal tumors extending to the dentate line: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月9日

查看全文
  • Cong Ding,
  • Jianfeng Yang,
  • Jing Yang,
  • Yifeng Zhou,
  • Hui Wang,
  • Shouyuan Xu,
  • Hongzhang Shen,
  • Qiang Liu

摘要

Purpose

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with those of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for rectal tumors extending to the dentate line (RTDLs).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases up to July 2025 for studies that reported the clinical outcomes of EMR or ESD for RTDLs.

Results

Fifteen studies (237 for EMR and 564 for ESD) were included in this meta-analysis. The en bloc resection rate (0.961 vs. 0.097; p = 0.000) was significantly greater in the ESD group than in the EMR group, and the local recurrence rate (0.023 vs. 0.188; p = 0.000) was significantly lower in the ESD group. No significant differences in the complete resection rate (0.793 vs. 0.823, p = 0.869) were noted between the ESD and EMR groups. In terms of adverse events, there were no differences in the postoperative bleeding rate (0.067 vs. 0.082; p = 0.677), perforation rate (0 vs.0; p = 0.605) or stricture rate (0.022 vs. 0.042; p = 0.378) between the ESD and EMR groups.

Conclusion

ESD and EMR are effective and safe treatments for RTDLs; however, compared with EMR, ESD is associated with a higher en bloc resection rate and a lower local recurrence rate.