Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps:A meta-analysis and metaregression with single arm analysis

BACKGROUND Endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD)has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries,while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR)is preferred is still debatable.AIM To compare the surgical,histological,and oncological outcomes between ESD and EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps,with subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of ESD and EMR between Japan and the rest of the world.METHODS Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to October 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing en bloc,complete resection,margin involvement,resection time,need for additional surgery,complications,and recurrence rate of ESD with EMR.RESULTS Of 281344 colorectal polyps from 21 studies were included.When compared to EMR,the pooled analysis revealed ESD was associated with higher en bloc and complete resection rate,and lower lateral margin involvement and recurrence.ESD led to increased procedural time,need for additional surgery,and perforation risk.No significant difference in bleeding risk was found between the two groups.Meta-regression analysis suggested only right colonic polyps correlated with an increased perforation risk in ESD.Confounders including polyp size and invasion depth did not significantly influence the en bloc and complete resection rate,bleeding risk and recurrence.In subgroup analysis,Japan performed better than the rest of the world in both ESD and EMR with perforation risk of 4%and 0.0002%,respectively,as compared to perforation risk of 8%and 1%,respectively,in reports coming from rest of the world.CONCLUSION ESD resulted in better resection outcomes and lower recurrence compared to EMR.With appropriate training,ESD is preferred over EMR as the first-line therapy for resection of colorectal polyps,without restricting to lesions greater than 20 mm and those with high suspicion of submucosal invasion.

Is colonic lavage a suitable alternative for left-sided colonic emergencies?

BACKGROUND The use of intra-operative colonic lavage(IOCL)with primary anastomosis remains controversial in the emergency left-sided large bowel pathologies,with alternatives including Hartmann’s procedure,manual decompression and subtotal colectomy.AIM To compare the peri-operative outcomes of IOCL to other procedures.METHODS Electronic databases were searched for articles employing IOCL from inception till July 13,2020.Odds ratio and weighted mean differences(WMD)were estimated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes respectively.Single-arm meta-analysis was conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random effects.RESULTS Of 28 studies were included in this meta-analysis,involving 1142 undergoing IOCL,and 634 other interventions.IOCL leads to comparable rates of wound infection when compared to Hartmann’s procedure,and anastomotic leak and wound infection when compared to manual decompression.There was a decreased length of hospital stay(WMD=-7.750;95%CI:-13.504 to-1.996;P=0.008)compared to manual decompression and an increased operating time.Single-arm meta-analysis found that overall mortality rates with IOCL was 4%(CI:0.03-0.05).Rates of anastomotic leak and wound infection were 3%(CI:0.02-0.04)and 12%(CI:0.09-0.16)respectively.CONCLUSION IOCL leads to similar rates of post-operative complications compared to other procedures.More extensive studies are needed to assess the outcomes of IOCL for emergency left-sided colonic surgeries.

Foregut bypass vs.restrictive bariatric procedures for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease:a meta-analysis of 3,355 individuals

Background:Bariatric surgery represents an important treatment option for severely obese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease(NAFLD).However,there remains inadequate data regarding the effects of different bariatric procedures on various NAFLD parameters,especially for histological outcomes.Thus,this meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of restrictive bariatric procedures and foregut bypass on the metabolic,biochemical,and histological parameters for patients with NAFLD.Methods:Medline and Embase were searched for articles relating to bariatric procedures and NAFLD.Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to compare efficacy of bariatric procedures pre-vs.post-procedure with subgroup analysis to further compare restrictive against foregut bypass procedures.Results:Thirty-one articles involving 3,355 patients who underwent restrictive bariatric procedures(n=1,460)and foregut bypass(n=1,895)were included.Both foregut bypass(P<0.01)and restrictive procedures(P=0.03)significantly increased odds of fibrosis resolution.Compared to restrictive procedures,foregut bypass resulted in a borderline non-significant decrease in fibrosis score(P=0.06)and significantly lower steatosis score(P<0.001).For metabolic parameters,foregut bypass significantly lowered body mass index(P=0.003)and low-density lipoprotein(P=0.008)compared to restrictive procedures.No significant differences were observed between both procedures for aspartate aminotransferase(P=0.17)and alkaline phosphatase(P=0.61).However,foregut bypass resulted in significantly lower gamma-glutamyl transferase than restrictive procedures(P=0.01)while restrictive procedures resulted in significantly lower alanine transaminase than foregut bypass(P=0.02).Conclusions:The significant histological and metabolic advantages and comparable improvements in biochemical outcomes support the choice of foregut bypass over restrictive bariatric procedures in NAFLD management.

Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials

Background: Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.Results: After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04,P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06,P = 0.27).Conclusions: Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.