Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Different Methods of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has developed different methods, such as pocket method (P-ESD), traction-assisted method (T-ESD), and hybrid method (H-ESD). In this meta-analysis, the benefits and drawbacks of different ESD methods were discussed and ranked. Study Design: Studies comparing different methods of colorectal ESD were searched by using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The study was conducted for five endpoints: en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection speed, and adverse events rate. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed through Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 16.0. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 RCTs and 19 non-RCTs, with a total of 3,002 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the en bloc resection rate of H-ESD was significantly lower than that of C-ESD, P-ESD, and T-ESD (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.65]; RR = 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44]; RR = 8.28, 95% CI [2.50, 27.42]). Compared with C-ESD, the operation time of H-ESD and T-ESD was significantly shorter (MD = −21.83, 95% CI [−34.76, −8.90]; MD = −23.8, 95% CI [−32.55, −15.06]). Meanwhile, the operation time of T-ESD was also significantly shorter than that of P-ESD (MD = −18.74, 95% CI [−31.93, −5.54]). The dissection speed of T-ESD was significantly faster than that of C-ESD (MD = 6.26, 95% CI [2.29, 10.23]). Conclusion: P-ESD and T-ESD are probably the two best methods of colorectal ESD at present. The advantages of P-ESD are high en bloc resection rate and low incidence of adverse events. The advantages of T-ESD are rapid dissection and short operation time.