Table 1 characteristics of included studies
Author, year of publication | Country | Patients (n) (T-ESD vs C-ESD) | Age (years) (T-ESD vs C-ESD) | Location of lesions | Inclusion criteria for lesions size (mm) (T-ESD vs C-ESD) | Methods of traction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ahn et al. [18] 2013 | Korea | 26:25 | 66.5 ± 8.8 vs 62.9 ± 8.7 | Gastric neoplasm | 20.5 ± 7.9 vs 19.4 ± 6.5 | Transnasal endoscope |
Ritsuno et al. [21] 2014 | Japan | 27:23 | 66.2 ± 9.6 vs 66.4 ± 8.9 | Colorectal tumors | 33.5 ± 12.5 vs 37.8 ± 13.1 | S–O clip |
Koike et al. [19] 2015 | Japan | 20:20 | 71 ± 6.3 vs 69.5 ± 9.5 | Esophageal carcinoma | 24(11–92) vs 27(8–48) | Clip with thread |
Mori et al. [20] 2017 | Japan | 21:22 | 74 ± 10 vs 72 ± 12 | Colorectal tumors | NA | Ring-shaped thread |
Yamasaki et al. [22] 2018 | Japan | 42:42 | 65(41–84) vs 67(43–86) | Colorectal neoplasm | 30(20–55) vs 30(20–60) | Clip-and-thread |
Yoshida et al. [23] 2018 | Japan | 319:316 | 70.2 ± 9.4 vs 71 ± 8.4 | Gastric neoplasms | 15.7 ± 10.1 vs 15.5 ± 8.9 | Dental floss clip |
Ban et al. [24] 2018 | Japan | 49:55 | 71.2 ± 6.5 vs 69.0 ± 9.5 | Gastric cancers or gastric adenomas | NA | Clip-flap |