ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumor.
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Pooled it
- Endoscopic and trans-anal local excision vs. radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Pooled it
- Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiographyWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Endoscopic management versus transanal surgery for early primary or early locally recurrent rectal neoplasms-a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of early rectal tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison between endoscopic resection and transanal surgery for treatment of rectal tumors: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Intestinal research · 2026Review
- Endoscopic therapy versus surgical resection for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a population-based comparative analysis of long-term survival outcomes.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of rectal tumors.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissectionWorld journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- The Role of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for Early Rectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Comparison of the efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery in the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors ≤ 2 cm.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Successful Endoscopic Resection of a Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Larger Than 5 cm.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors, including large adenoma, cancer, and subepithelial tumors (SET). Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 71 patients with rectal tumors who were treated with ESD (48 patients) or TEM (23 patients) from January 2013 to December 2015. The patient group comprised 56 patients with epithelial tumors and 15 patients with SET. Treatment efficacy such as en bloc resection, procedure time, local recurrence, hospital stay, additional procedure rate, and safety between the treatment groups were evaluated and analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor size, location, macroscopic appearance, and histological depth between ESD and TEM groups. For ESD compared to TEM in rectal epithelial tumors, en bloc resection rates were 95% vs. 93.7% and R0 resection rates were 92.5% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.617); in rectal SET, en bloc resection rates were 100% vs. 100% and R0 resection rates were 87% vs. 85% (P = 0.91). The procedure time was 71.5 ± 51.3 min vs. 105.6 ± 28.2 min (P = 0.016) for epithelial tumors and 32.13 ± 13.4 min vs. 80.71 ± 18.35 min (P = 0.00) for SET, respectively. Hospital stay was 4.3 ± 1.2 days vs. 5.8 ± 1.8 days (P = 0.001) for epithelial tumors and 4.1 ± 4.1 days vs. 5.5 ± 2 days (P = 0.42) for rectal SET, respectively. There were no significant differences between recurrence rates, additional procedure rates, and complications in the two groups. Conclusions: ESD and TEM are both effective and safe for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors and SET because of favorable R0 resection rates and recurrence rates. However, the ESD group showed shorter procedure times and hospital stays than the TEM group. Therefore, ESD should be considered more preferentially than TEM in the treatment of large rectal epithelial tumors and SET.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.