RESUMO
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being utilized for the resection of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. However, the long procedure time poses a technical challenge for conventional ESD (C-ESD). Traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) was developed to facilitate the procedure by reducing its duration. This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ESD versus T-ESD in the treatment of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. Traction-assisted ESD exhibited shorter mean dissection times for the esophagus and colorectal regions and lower perforation rates in colorectal cases. No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection or bleeding rates. Traction-assisted ESD proves to be more efficient in mean procedure time for esophageal and colorectal cases and safer in perforation rates for colorectal cases, but similar rates are noted for en bloc resection or bleeding.
RESUMO
Zenker's diverticulum treatment options range from endoscopic rigid or flexible procedures to surgery. There are limited studies available comparing these techniques. Frequently, the choice of treatment depends on the physician's preference or experience, as well as the institution's resources and capacity. Therefore, this study aims to define the best approach based on the highest efficacy and the lowest severe adverse events. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search was performed. Only comparative studies were included, analyzing flexible endoscopy versus rigid endoscopy or surgery. The outcomes analyzed were clinical and technical success, severe adverse events, length of stay, and duration of the procedure. Analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (RevMan 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Eight retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1281 patients were identified, 492 underwent flexible endoscopy, 453 underwent rigid endoscopy, and 336 underwent surgery. There was no difference in clinical success [risk difference (RD), 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.19%); P = 0.26], technical success [RD, 0.07 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.16); P = 0.18], severe adverse events [RD, -0.03 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.07; P = 0.052), perforation [RD, 0.07 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.19); P = 0.22] or procedure time [mean difference (MD), - 10.03 (95% CI -26.93 to 6.88); P = 0.24). There was lower length of stay with flexible endoscopy compared to the other approaches [MD, -1.98 (95% CI -3.56 to -0.40); P = 0.001]. Based on the current evidence, the three main techniques are effective for the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum. Although there was no significant difference in the safety of each technique in this meta-analysis, this result should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited data and the risk of vies between the techniques, considering that the results tend to favor flexible endoscopy, mainly explained by the newer and safer devices. Length of stay is lower with flexible endoscopy versus the other techniques, which can be beneficial considering the geriatric populations where Zenker's diverticulum mainly occurs.