Download PDF
Endoscopy 2021; 53(10): 1048-1058
DOI: 10.1055/a-1266-1855
Systematic review

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thomas R. McCarty
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Christopher C. Thompson
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Hiroyuki Aihara
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly utilized to overcome the complexity of conventional ESD. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hybrid ESD for treatment of colorectal lesions.

Methods Search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included en bloc resection, procedure-associated complications, recurrence, and need for surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare effectiveness of conventional versus hybrid ESD.

Results 16 studies (751 patients) were included with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) lesion size of 27.96 (10.55) mm. En bloc resection rate was 81.63 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 72.07 – 88.44; I2  = 80.89). Complications, recurrences, and need for surgery occurred in 7.74 % (95 %CI 4.78 – 12.31; I2  = 65.84), 4.52 % (95 %CI 1.40 – 13.65; I2  = 76.81), and 3.64 % (95 %CI 1.76 – 7.37; I2  = 15.52), respectively. Mean procedure duration was 48.83 (22.37) minutes. On subgroup analyses comparing outcomes for conventional (n = 1703) versus hybrid ESD (n = 497), procedure duration was significantly shorter for hybrid ESD (mean difference 18.45 minutes; P = 0.003), with lower complication rates (P = 0.04); however, hybrid ESD had lower en bloc resection rates (P < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of recurrence or surgery (P > 0.05).

Conclusion While hybrid ESD was safe and effective for removal of colorectal lesions, with shorter procedure duration, fewer complications, and no difference in recurrence versus conventional ESD, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower en bloc resection rate.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 29 March 2020

Accepted after revision: 18 September 2020

Accepted Manuscript online:
18 September 2020

Article published online:
16 December 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 McCarty TR, Aihara H. Current state of education and training for endoscopic submucosal dissection: translating strategy and success to the USA. Dig Endosc 2019; DOI: 10.1111/den.13591.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Maple JT, Abu DayyehBK. ASGE Technology Committee. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1311-1325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Hathorn KE. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for treatment of rectal tumors: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 1688-1695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nam MJ, Sohn DK, Hong CW. et al. Cost comparison between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumors. Ann Surg Treat Res 2015; 89: 202-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Park HW, Byeon JS, Park YS. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Park SU, Min YW, Shin JU. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection or transanal endoscopic microsurgery for nonpolypoid rectal high grade dysplasia and submucosa-invading rectal cancer. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 1031-1036
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T. et al. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 74-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pimentel-Nunes P, Pioche M, Albeniz E. et al. Curriculum for endoscopic submucosal dissection training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 980-992
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 219-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Draganov PV, Wang AY, Othman MO. et al. AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 16-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: W65-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Turiani Hourneaux de Moura D, Aihara H, Jirapinyo P. et al. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection versus conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: outcomes of a randomized pilot study in endoscopists without prior ESD experience (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 290-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Peery AF, Cools KS, Strassle PD. et al. Increasing rates of surgery for patients with nonmalignant colorectal polyps in the United States. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 1352-1360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goda K, Fujishiro M, Hirasawa K. et al. How to teach and learn endoscopic submucosal dissection for upper gastrointestinal neoplasm in Japan. Dig Endosc 2012; 24 (Suppl. 01) 136-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gotoda T, Draganov PV. ESD training in the East. In: Fukami N. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: principles and practice. New York, NY: Springer; 2015: 229-235
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Ohata K, Muramoto T, Minato Y. et al. Usefulness of a multifunctional snare designed for colorectal hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video). Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E249-E53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yang D, Draganov PV. Gaining traction: pulley-ing your weight during endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 185-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sano Y, Tanaka S, Kudo SE. et al. Narrow-band imaging (NBI) magnifying endoscopic classification of colorectal tumors proposed by the Japan NBI Expert Team. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 526-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Draganov PV, Gotoda T, Chavalitdhamrong D. et al. Techniques of endoscopic submucosal dissection: application for the Western endoscopist?. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 677-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rex DK, Hassan C, Dewitt JM. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States: why do we hear so much about it and do so little of it?. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 554-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Boskoski I, Costamagna G. Endoscopy robotics: current and future applications. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yeung BP, Chiu PW. Application of robotics in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a review. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 1811-1825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yamamoto Y, Fujisaki J, Ishiyama A. et al. Current status of training for endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm at Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, a famous Japanese hospital. Dig Endosc 2012; 24 (Suppl. 01) 148-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Colon Cancer (version 2.2018). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2018 https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf Accessed 15 January 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Rectal Cancer (version 1.2018). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2018 https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf Accessed 15 January 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Toyonaga T, Man IM, Morita Y. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus simplified/hybrid ESD. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014; 24: 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gorospe EC, Wong Kee Song LM. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colon: cutting corners or trimming fat?. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 593-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ge PS, Jirapinyo P, Ohya TR. et al. Predicting outcomes in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a United States experience. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 4016-4025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yang D, Aihara H, Perbtani YB. et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1714-E1722
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gotoda T, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R. Is en bloc resection essential for endoscopic resection of GI neoplasia?. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 805-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Okamoto K, Muguruma N, Kagemoto K. et al. Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases. Dig Endosc 2017; 29 (Suppl. 02) 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1887-1892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar