ABSTRACT
Background and study aims Biliary sphincterotomy is a crucial step in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a procedure known to carry a 5% to 10% risk of complications. The relationship between Pure cut, Endocut, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and bleeding is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared these two current types and their relationships with adverse events. Patients and methods This systematic review involved searching articles in multiple databases until August 2023 comparing pure cut versus Endocut in biliary sphincterotomy. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Results A total of 987 patients from four randomized controlled trials were included. Overall pancreatitis: A higher risk of pancreatitis was found in the Endocut group than in the Pure cut group ( P =0.001, RD=0.04 [range, 0.01 to 0.06]; I 2 =29%). Overall immediate bleeding: Statistical significance was found to favor Endocut, ( P =0.05; RD=-0.15 [range, -0.29 to -0.00]; I 2 =93%). No statistical significance between current modes was found in immediate bleeding without endoscopic intervention ( P =0.10; RD=-0.13 [range, -0.29 to 0.02]; I 2 =88%), immediate bleeding with endoscopic intervention ( P =0.06; RD=-0.07 [range, -0.14 to 0.00]; I 2 =76%), delayed bleeding (P=0.40; RD=0.01 [range, -0.02 to 0.05]; I 2 =72%), zipper cut ( P =0.58; RD=-0.03 [range, -0.16 to 0.09]; I 2 =97%), perforation ( P =1.00; RD=0.00 [range, -0.01 to 0.01]; I 2 =0%) and cholangitis ( P =0.77; RD=0.00 [range, -0.01 to 0.02]; I 2 =29%). Conclusions The available data in the literature show that Endocut carries an increased risk for PEP and does not prevent delayed or clinically significant bleeding, although it prevents intraprocedural bleeding. Based on such findings, Pure cut should be the preferred electric current mode for biliary sphincterotomy.
ABSTRACT
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.
