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

• Published in: Digestive endoscopy Vol. 36; no. 11; pp. 1213 - 1224
• Main Authors: Veras Ayres da Silva, Pedro Henrique, So Taa Kum, Angelo, Logetto Caetité Gomes, Igor, Miyajima, Nelson Tomio, Moraes Bestetti, Alexandre, Cadena Aguirre, Diego Paul, Mansilla Gallegos, Megui Marilia, Menezes Nascimento Filho, Hiram, Gomes de Sousa, Igor Valdeir, Marques Bernardo, Wanderley, Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura, Eduardo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia 01-11-2024
• Subjects: ClutchCutter knife; colorectal neoplasm; endoscopic submucosal dissection; scissor‐assisted ESD; Stag Beetle knife; endoscopic submucosal dissection; ClutchCutter knife; scissor‐assisted ESD; Stag Beetle knife; colorectal neoplasm
• ISSN: 0915-5635; 1443-1661; 1443-1661
• DOI: 10.1111/den.14829

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 I2 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; I2 = 0%) and the self‐completion rate was statistically higher (RD 0.14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.23; P = 0.0006; I2 = 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.