Aller au contenu principal
2026 review

Comparison of precut endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
9Institutions déclarées
2Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us, pk. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing precut endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-P) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the management of colorectal polyps have reported conflicting results. In this meta-analysis, we have compared outcomes of EMR-P and ESD. METHODS: Several databases were reviewed from inception to 15 December 2024 to identify studies comparing EMR-P and ESD for colorectal polyps. Our outcomes of interest were en bloc and complete histologic resection, procedure time, perforation, and bleeding. For the outcomes of en bloc and complete histologic resection, we performed subgroup analyses including greater than or equal to 20 mm polyps and 20-30 mm polyps. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous variables. RESULTS: We included nine studies comprising 1460 patients. The rate of en bloc resection was significantly lower in the EMR-P group (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.23). The rate of complete histologic resection was significantly lower in the EMR-P group (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.94). There was no significant difference in rates of en bloc and complete histologic resection between groups for 20-30 mm polyps. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the EMR-P group (Mean difference [MD]: -29.05, 95% CI: -37.04 to -21.06). There was no significant difference in adverse events such as bleeding and perforation between groups. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of ESD over EMR-P in achieving higher rates of en bloc and complete resection for colorectal polyps without increasing the risk of adverse events except for 20-30 mm polyps, where the outcomes were comparable between groups.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Comparison of precut endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Date Crossref
28/04/2026
Éditeur
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Gastric Cancer Management and OutcomesColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.