S2257 Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Versus Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Removal of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established method for en-bloc resection of large or complex gastrointestinal (GI) lesions. Conventional ESD (C-ESD) is technically demanding and time-intensive, leading to the development of hybrid ESD (H-ESD) to improve procedural ease and speed. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes between H-ESD and C-ESD. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with random-effects models. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a significance threshold of P < 0.05. Results: Thirty-eight studies (7,226 patients; 8,129 lesions) were included. H-ESD was associated with significantly lower en-bloc (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.87-0.95; P < 0.001) and complete (R0) resection rates (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.98; P = 0.005), higher local recurrence (RR = 3.03; 95% CI: 1.55-5.92; P = 0.001), but shorter procedure time (MD = −16.56 minutes; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in intra-procedure bleeding (RR = 1.24; P = 0.388), intra-procedure perforation (RR = 0.96; P = 0.831), post-procedure bleeding (RR = 0.81; P = 0.439), and post-procedure perforation (RR = 0.63; P = 0.574). H-ESD showed no significant difference versus C-ESD in lateral margin involvement (P = 0.106), deep margin positivity (P = 0.265), or piecemeal resection rates (P = 0.185). In colorectal lesions, H-ESD showed lower en-bloc and complete resection rates vs C-ESD (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: In conclusion, H-ESD offers shorter procedure times for GI lesions with comparable efficacy in upper GI and small intestinal lesions but shows inferior outcomes in colorectal lesions. However, C-ESD is preferred for lesions >20 mm to achieve optimal oncological outcomes.

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001136488.79309.c2
Primary Topic
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S2257 Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Versus Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Removal of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
article

S2257 Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Versus Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Removal of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

article en

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established method for en-bloc resection of large or complex gastrointestinal (GI) lesions. Conventional ESD (C-ESD) is technically demanding and time-intensive, leading to the development of hybrid ESD (H-ESD) to improve procedural ease and speed. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes between H-ESD and C-ESD. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with random-effects models. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a significance threshold of P < 0.05. Results: Thirty-eight studies (7,226 patients; 8,129 lesions) were included. H-ESD was associated with significantly lower en-bloc (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.87-0.95; P < 0.001) and complete (R0) resection rates (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.98; P = 0.005), higher local recurrence (RR = 3.03; 95% CI: 1.55-5.92; P = 0.001), but shorter procedure time (MD = −16.56 minutes; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in intra-procedure bleeding (RR = 1.24; P = 0.388), intra-procedure perforation (RR = 0.96; P = 0.831), post-procedure bleeding (RR = 0.81; P = 0.439), and post-procedure perforation (RR = 0.63; P = 0.574). H-ESD showed no significant difference versus C-ESD in lateral margin involvement (P = 0.106), deep margin positivity (P = 0.265), or piecemeal resection rates (P = 0.185). In colorectal lesions, H-ESD showed lower en-bloc and complete resection rates vs C-ESD (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: In conclusion, H-ESD offers shorter procedure times for GI lesions with comparable efficacy in upper GI and small intestinal lesions but shows inferior outcomes in colorectal lesions. However, C-ESD is preferred for lesions >20 mm to achieve optimal oncological outcomes.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

S2257 Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Versus Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Removal of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Meta-Analysis · The American Journal of Gastroenterology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS