Performance of three major techniques for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been recognized as the standard treatment for early malignant lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Limited evidence is synthesized on effectiveness of different techniques employed to facilitate ESD. We assessed the comparative efficacy of ESD techniques through a network meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques for ESD, including tunnel/pocket method (Tu-ESD), traction method (Tr-ESD), and conventional method (C-ESD) were identified. Study outcomes were en bloc resection, curative resection, procedure time, and adverse events. We performed network meta-analyses for all treatments and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence.

Results

18 RCTs involving 2677 patients were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of three major ESD techniques. Network meta-analysis results showed no inconsistencies across the network for all outcomes. According to surface under the cumulative ranking analysis, Tu-ESD achieved the highest ranking for curative resection (score 92.1), whereas Tr-ESD ranked highest for reducing procedure time (score 100). Tr-ESD demonstrated a significant reduction in procedure time compared with C-ESD (mean difference: –18.74 [95%CI –25.99 to –11.49]). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses (according to colorectal, gastric, and esophageal locations) showed that Tr-ESD was best for en bloc resection and procedure time, while Tu-ESD was best for curative resection and adverse events.

Conclusion

Both Tu-ESD and Tr-ESD were effective and safe dissection methods compared with C-ESD. Given that different ESD techniques offer different advantages, the choice of technique should be tailored to the specific clinical scenario.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 24. April 2025

Angenommen nach Revision: 25. Juni 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
25. Juni 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. August 2025

• References

• 1 Fujishiro M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 5108-5112
• 2 Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – update 2022. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 591-622
• 3 Yamasaki Y, Takeuchi Y, Uedo N. et al. Efficacy of traction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a clip-and-thread technique: a prospective randomized study. Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 467-476
• 4 Mori H, Kobara H, Nishiyama N. et al. Novel effective and repeatedly available ring-thread counter traction for safer colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 3040-3047
• 5 Yamamoto H, Kawata H, Sunada K. et al. Successful en-bloc resection of large superficial tumors in the stomach and colon using sodium hyaluronate and small-caliber-tip transparent hood. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 690-694
• 6 Wu X, Ye C, Cao Z. et al. Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of different methods of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Dig Dis 2022; 40: 796-809
• 7 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley; 2019
• 8 Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM. et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 777-784
• 9 Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH. et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5630
• 10 Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
• 11 Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP. et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 2011; 14: 429-437
• 12 Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005; 331: 897-900
• 13 Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM. et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010; 29: 932-944
• 14 Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 80-97
• 15 Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D. et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One 2013; 8: e76654
• 16 Dechartres A, Altman DG, Trinquart L. et al. Association between analytic strategy and estimates of treatment outcomes in meta-analyses. JAMA 2014; 312: 623-630
• 17 Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T. et al. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2020; 17: e1003082
• 18 Ritsuno H, Sakamoto N, Osada T. et al. Prospective clinical trial of traction device-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of large superficial colorectal tumors using the S-O clip. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 3143-3149
• 19 Koike Y, Hirasawa D, Fujita N. et al. Usefulness of the thread-traction method in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 303-309
• 20 Ban H, Sugimoto M, Otsuka T. et al. Usefulness of the clip-flap method of endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24: 4077-4085
• 21 Yoshida M, Takizawa K, Suzuki S. et al. Conventional versus traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1231-1240
• 22 Wang F, Leng X, Gao Y. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of distal intestinal tumors using grasping forceps for traction. Tech Coloproctol 2019; 23: 1079-1083
• 23 Yoshida M, Takizawa K, Nonaka S. et al. Conventional versus traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for large esophageal cancers: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 55-65.e2
• 24 Yamashina T, Nemoto D, Hayashi Y. et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 368-379
• 25 Tamaru Y, Kuwai T, Miyakawa A. et al. Efficacy of a traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection using a scissor-type knife: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117: 1797-1804
• 26 Fan X, Wu Q, Li R. et al. Clinical benefit of tunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cancer: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 436-444
• 27 Hasatani K, Yoshida N, Aoyagi H. et al. Usefulness of the clip-and-snare method using the pre-looping technique for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Gastroenterol 2022; 35: 48-55
• 28 Liu X, Yu X, Wang Y. et al. Effectiveness of a novel traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions. Surg Endosc 2022; 36: 8021-8029
• 29 Ichijima R, Ikehara H, Sumida Y. et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial). Dig Endosc 2023; 35: 86-93
• 30 Morikawa T, Nemoto D, Kurokawa T. et al. Multicenter prospective randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the pocket-creation method with and without single-clip traction of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 583-593
• 31 Kinoshita J, Iguchi M, Maekita T. et al. Efficacy of the traction method for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 100: 307-311.e2
• 32 Wu J, Li S, Fan L. et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancers and precancerous lesions. J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 28: 1385-1391
• 33 Bi YZ, Zhou LM, Yan SJ. et al. The efficacy and safety of per-nasal “GTS partner” assisted traction technique for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective single-center randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2024; 38: 7399-7408
• 34 Jacques J, Schaefer M, Wallenhorst T. et al. Endoscopic en bloc versus piecemeal resection of large nonpedunculated colonic adenomas : a randomized comparative trial. Ann Intern Med 2024; 177: 29-38
• 35 Pasam RT, Thompson CC, Aihara H. Tunneled or pocket creation method versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric lesions – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 101: 45-53
• 36 Singh S, Mohan BP, Chandan S. et al. Conventional versus traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Gastroenterol 2024; 58: 1016-1021
• 37 Lopimpisuth C, Simons M, Akshintala VS. et al. Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection reduces procedure time and risk of serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2022; 36: 1775-1788
• 38 Nagata M. Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: what is the best traction method and traction direction?. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28: 1-22
• 39 Zheng L, Chen L, Xu B. et al. Orthodontic rubber band traction improves trainees’ learning curve of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2024; 120: 1521-1528
• 40 Grimaldi J, Masgnaux LJ, Lafeuille P. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with adaptive traction strategy: first prospective multicenter study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 100: 517-523