Thermal ablation of margins for recurrence prevention after endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:1
|
作者
Santo, Paula [1 ]
Meine, Gilmara Coelho [2 ]
Holanda, Erica Uchoa [3 ]
Barbosa, Eduardo Cerchi [4 ]
Baraldo, Stefano [5 ]
Nau, Angelica Luciana [6 ]
Henry Moore, Karollyna Maria [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Fed Univ Sao Carlos, Diagnost Imaging & Specialized Diag Unit, 111 Luis Vaz Camoes St Vila Celina, BR-13566448 Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil
[2] Feevale Univ, Novo Hamburgo, RS, Brazil
[3] Univ Ctr Christus, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
[4] Evangel Univ Goias, Anapolis, GO, Brazil
[5] Barretos Canc Hosp, Barretos, SP, Brazil
[6] Jaragua Hosp, Jaragua Do Sul, SC, Brazil
[7] Inst Univ Ciencias Salud, Fdn Barcelo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
关键词
Thermal ablation; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Colonoscopy; COLONIC POLYPS; ARGON PLASMA; RECOMMENDATIONS;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-024-11498-z
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal lesions can be challenging, and residual lesions after EMR can progress to colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding thermal ablation of margins [using argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC)] in reducing recurrence rates after EMR. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were overall adverse events (AEs) and delayed bleeding. We pre-specified subgroup analyses by lesion size, thermal ablation technique, and resection type. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. Results We included four RCTs (815 patients and 872 colorectal lesions). Thermal ablation reduced recurrence rates [RR 0.31; 95%CI (0.20-0.47); I2 = 0%], while the risk of overall AEs [RR 0.93; 95%CI (0.73-1.17); I2 = 0%] was similar between both groups. The results were consistent in subgroup analyses of APC, STSC, polyps > 20 mm, and piece-meal resection. Conclusion Thermal ablation of margins following EMR reduced recurrence rates while maintaining a comparable safety profile.
引用
收藏
页码:741 / 748
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Thermal ablation after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: not only the margins, but also the base?
    Djinbachian, Roupen
    Pohl, Heiko
    Rex, Douglas K.
    Levenick, John M.
    Pleskow, Douglas K.
    Wallace, Michael B.
    Khashab, Mouen
    Singh, Ajaypal
    Melson, Joshua
    Yang, Dennis
    Gavric, Aleksandar
    von Renteln, Daniel
    GUT, 2024, 73 (01) : 12 - 15
  • [32] Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Yamashina, Takeshi
    Hanaoka, Noboru
    Setoyama, Takeshi
    Watanabe, Jun
    Banno, Masahiro
    Marusawa, Hiroyuki
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 13 (08)
  • [33] Cold Snare Polypectomy and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Duodenal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Ladna, Michael
    King, William
    Qumseya, Bashar
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 118 (10): : S1363 - S1364
  • [34] Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Garg, Rajat
    Singh, Amandeep
    Mohan, Babu P.
    Mankaney, Gautam
    Regueiro, Miguel
    Chahal, Prabhleen
    ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN, 2020, 08 (12) : E1884 - E1894
  • [35] Endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhong, D. -D.
    Shao, L. -M.
    Cai, J. -T.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2013, 15 (03) : 283 - 291
  • [36] Prophylactic Clipping to Prevent Delayed Bleeding and Perforation After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Jiang, Wenxi
    Cen, Li
    Dong, Caijuan
    Zhu, Shefeng
    Shen, Zhe
    Li, Dong
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 56 (08) : 643 - 653
  • [37] SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF UNDERWATER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION AND CAP-ASSISTED ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION FOR DUODENAL LESIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND POOLED META-ANALYSIS
    Gurram, Priyatham
    Nayeem, Mohammed
    Asfeen, Ummul
    Pasnoor, Diksha Sanjana
    Bajjuri, Shreya
    Kodali, Lakshmi Sai Meghana
    Guna, Sowmya Durga Subhasri
    Kalangi, Hari Chandana
    Rao, Vaishnavi
    Koya, Sirish Reddy
    Najam, Beenish
    Paladiya, Ruchir
    Desai, Rupak
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2024, 99 (06) : AB312 - AB313
  • [38] Thermal coagulation of mucosal defect margins using monopolar forceps reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection
    Pugliese, Francesco
    Italia, Angelo
    Dioscoridi, Lorenzo
    Giannetti, Aurora
    Bonato, Giulia
    Mutignani, Massimiliano
    DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 2019, 51 (08) : 1206 - 1206
  • [39] Endoscopic Resection of Sinonasal Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Rawal, Rounak B.
    Farzal, Zainab
    Federspiel, Jerome J.
    Sreenath, Satyan B.
    Thorp, Brian D.
    Zanation, Adam M.
    OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2016, 155 (03) : 376 - 386
  • [40] COMPARATIVE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION AND ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR RESECTION OF RECTAL NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Schiavone, Grace
    Pryor, Danielle
    Tofani, Christina
    Schlachterman, Alexander
    Kamal, Faisal
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 97 (06) : AB134 - AB135