A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Scissor-assisted vs. conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Objectives: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically complex procedure. The scissor knife mechanism may potentially provide easier and safer colorectal ESD. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scissor-assisted vs. conventional ESD for colorectal lesions.

Methods: A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Lilacs databases from January 1990 to November 2023 according to PRISMA guidelines. Fixed and random-effects models were used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I test. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB-2 tools. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.

Results: A total of five studies (three retrospective and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 1575 colorectal ESD) were selected. The intraoperative perforation rate was statistically lower (risk difference [RD] -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.04 to -0.01; P = 0.001; I = 0%) and the self-completion rate was statistically higher (RD 0.14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.23; P = 0.0006; I = 0%) in the scissor-assisted group compared with the conventional ESD group. There was no statistical difference in R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate, mean procedure time, or delayed bleeding rate between the groups.

Conclusion: Scissor knife-assisted ESD is as effective as conventional knife-assisted ESD for colorectal lesions with lower intraoperative perforation rate and a higher self-completion rate.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/den.14829DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

scissor-assisted conventional
8
endoscopic submucosal
8
submucosal dissection
8
colorectal lesions
8
colorectal esd
8
conventional esd
8
esd colorectal
8
intraoperative perforation
8
perforation rate
8
rate statistically
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!