Background/Aims: Scissor-type endoscopic submucosal dissection (ST-ESD) knives can reduce the adverse events associated with ESDs. This study aimed to compare ST-ESD and non-scissor-type (NST)-ESD knives. Methods: We identified ten studies that compared the performance characteristics and safety profiles of ST-ESD and NST-ESD knives. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results: On comparing ST-ESD knives to NST-ESD knives, the weighted odds of en bloc resection was 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90–2.90; p=0.14), R0 resection was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.71–1.71; p=0.73), delayed bleeding was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.17–0.90; p=0.03), perforation was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.18–0.70; p<0.01) and ESD self-completion by non-experts was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.20–2.95; p<0.01). There was no heterogeneity, with an I2 score of 0% (95% CI, 0%–54.40%). Conclusions The findings of reduced odds of perforation, a trend toward reduced delayed bleeding, and an improvement in the rates of en bloc and R0 resection with ST-ESD knives compared to NST-ESD knives support the use of ST-ESD knives when non-experts perform ESDs or as an adjunct tool for challenging ESD procedures.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel technique used to repair esophageal perforation and leaks. Varying data have been reported on the overall success rate of EVAC. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the available data on the clinical success rate of EVAC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for publications addressing the efficacy of EVAC in esophageal luminal defects. Pooling was conducted using both fixed and random-effects models. The overall clinical success of EVAC therapy was considered the primary outcome, whereas, overall complication rates, need for adjunct therapy, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 366 patients were included in the study. On pooled analysis, the mean age was 66 years with 68.32% of patients being men. Overall pooled clinical success rate of EVAC therapy was 87.95%. Upon subgroup analysis, the pooled clinical success rate of postsurgical anastomotic leak and transmural esophageal perforation were found to be 86.57% and 88.89%, respectively. The all-cause hospital mortality was 14% and 4.2% in patients with esophageal perforation and EVAC, respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrates that EVAC therapy has a high overall clinical success rate, with low mortality. EVAC therapy seems to be a promising procedure with excellent outcomes in patients with luminal esophageal defects.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel technique used to repair esophageal perforation and leaks. Varying data have been reported on the overall success rate of EVAC. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the available data on the clinical success rate of EVAC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for publications addressing the efficacy of EVAC in esophageal luminal defects. Pooling was conducted using both fixed and random-effects models. The overall clinical success of EVAC therapy was considered the primary outcome, whereas, overall complication rates, need for adjunct therapy, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 366 patients were included in the study. On pooled analysis, the mean age was 66 years with 68.32% of patients being men. Overall pooled clinical success rate of EVAC therapy was 87.95%. Upon subgroup analysis, the pooled clinical success rate of postsurgical anastomotic leak and transmural esophageal perforation were found to be 86.57% and 88.89%, respectively. The all-cause hospital mortality was 14% and 4.2% in patients with esophageal perforation and EVAC, respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrates that EVAC therapy has a high overall clinical success rate, with low mortality. EVAC therapy seems to be a promising procedure with excellent outcomes in patients with luminal esophageal defects.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel technique used to repair esophageal perforation and leaks. Varying data have been reported on the overall success rate of EVAC. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the available data on the clinical success rate of EVAC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for publications addressing the efficacy of EVAC in esophageal luminal defects. Pooling was conducted using both fixed and random-effects models. The overall clinical success of EVAC therapy was considered the primary outcome, whereas, overall complication rates, need for adjunct therapy, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 366 patients were included in the study. On pooled analysis, the mean age was 66 years with 68.32% of patients being men. Overall pooled clinical success rate of EVAC therapy was 87.95%. Upon subgroup analysis, the pooled clinical success rate of postsurgical anastomotic leak and transmural esophageal perforation were found to be 86.57% and 88.89%, respectively. The all-cause hospital mortality was 14% and 4.2% in patients with esophageal perforation and EVAC, respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrates that EVAC therapy has a high overall clinical success rate, with low mortality. EVAC therapy seems to be a promising procedure with excellent outcomes in patients with luminal esophageal defects.