-
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Nov 2023Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower gastrointestinal (LGI) injury, although these relationships have not yet been fully elucidated.
METHODS
We searched all the relevant studies published until September 2022 that examined the risk of PPIs for LGI bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of LGI bleeding (small bowel (SB) or colorectal bleeding) between PPI users and non-users. A subgroup analysis of patients consuming aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 341,063 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The use of PPIs was associated with the risk of LGI bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] = 1.42 [1.16-1.73]; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 3.23 [1.56-6.71]). An association between PPI use and the risk of LGI bleeding was also identified in the subgroup of aspirin or NSAID users (OR [95% CI] = 1.64 [1.49-1.80]; HR [95% CI] = 6.55 [2.01-21.33]). In the bleeding site-specific analyses, the risk of SB bleeding was associated with PPI use (OR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.30-1.84]).
CONCLUSIONS
PPI use was associated with an increased risk of LGI bleeding, particularly SB bleeding. This association was particularly pronounced among aspirin and NSAID users. Inappropriate PPI prescriptions should be avoided in patients with LGI bleeding and a low risk of upper gastrointestinal disease.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Aspirin; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37553807
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12448 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Aug 2015To present a systematic review of techniques and clinical results. (Review)
Review
AIM
To present a systematic review of techniques and clinical results.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature was performed. Only studies reporting patient outcome after radiosurgery (single fraction) delivered with robotic devices [i.e., robotic radiosurgery (RRS)] have been analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 96 patients from 5 studies were included. The studies are characterized by small series and different methods in terms of dose, target definition, combination with chemotherapy and/or standard fractionated radiotherapy and evaluation modalities. Preliminary results are positive in terms of tumor response (ORR = 56%) and local control of the tumor (crude rate of local progressions: 19.5%). Results for median overall survival (11.4 mo) seem comparable with the ones of prolonged chemoradiation (range: 8.6-13.0 mo). However, gastrointestinal toxicity seems to be the main limitation of RRS, especially at the duodenal level.
CONCLUSION
RRS allows for local treatment in a shortened time (1 fraction) compared to traditional treatments (about 1 mo), providing the possibility for an easy integration with systemic therapies. Preliminary results did not show any outcome differences compared to standard chemoradiation. Thus, further efforts to reduce gastrointestinal toxicity are strongly needed.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Radiosurgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26309369
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9420 -
Obesity Surgery Apr 2022Single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) offers a novel bariatric procedure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) offers a novel bariatric procedure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates observational and comparative studies evaluating SADI-S, with meta-analysis comparing outcomes to other malabsorptive procedures (MPs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted in March 2021. The study followed PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating SADI-S with n > 5 were included. Primary outcome was diabetes (DM) remission, and secondary outcomes included perioperative outcomes, comorbidity resolution, and weight loss.
RESULTS
We reviewed 2285 studies with 16 included evaluating 3319 patients and 1704 (51.3%) undergoing SADI-S. SADI-S patients had increased BMI (49.6 kg/m vs 48.8 kg/m) and weight (139.7 kg vs 137.1 kg), were more likely to have DM (46.3% vs 42.1%), and dyslipidemia (36.6% SADI-S vs 32.7%). SADI-S had a shorter operative duration than MPs (MD - 36.74, p < 0.001), 0.85-day shorter post-operative stay (p < 0.001), and trended towards fewer complications (OR 0.69, p = 0.06). Rate of reoperation (OR 0.83, p = 0.59) was similar and DM remission was similar (OR 0.07, p = 0.1). Subgroup analysis suggested greater DM remission than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (OR 4.42, p = 0.04). SADI-S had fewer malabsorptive complications, though follow-up was shorter. Weight loss was 37.3% compared to 35.6% total weight loss after SADI-S and MPs, respectively.
CONCLUSION
SADI-S demonstrates improved metabolic and weight loss outcomes with lower perioperative risks. SADI-S represents a promising bariatric procedure but long-term outcomes are needed to guide future uptake.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Gastric Bypass; Humans; Obesity, Morbid; Observational Studies as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Weight Loss
PubMed: 35001254
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05824-w -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2024() infects over half the global population, causing gastrointestinal diseases like dyspepsia, gastritis, duodenitis, peptic ulcers, G-MALT lymphoma, and gastric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
() infects over half the global population, causing gastrointestinal diseases like dyspepsia, gastritis, duodenitis, peptic ulcers, G-MALT lymphoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma. Eradicating is crucial for treating and preventing these conditions. While conventional proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based triple therapy is effective, there's growing interest in longer acid suppression therapies. Potassium competitive acid blocker (P-CAB) triple and dual therapy are new regimens for eradication. Initially used in Asian populations, vonoprazan (VPZ) has been recently Food and Drug Administration-approved for eradication.
AIM
To assess the efficacy of regimens containing P-CABs in eradicating infection.
METHODS
This study, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE and Scopus libraries for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or observational studies with the following command: [("" OR "H pylori") AND ("Treatment" OR "Therapy" OR "Eradication") AND ("Vonaprazan" OR "Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker" OR "P-CAB" OR "PCAB" OR "Revaprazan" OR "Linaprazan" OR "Soraprazan" OR "Tegoprazan")]. Studies comparing the efficacy of P-CABs-based treatment to classical PPIs in eradicating were included. Exclusion criteria included case reports, case series, unpublished trials, or conference abstracts. Data variables encompassed age, diagnosis method, sample sizes, study duration, intervention and control, and eradication method were gathered by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed in R software, and forest plots were generated.
RESULTS
A total of 256 references were initially retrieved through the search command. Ultimately, fifteen studies (7 RCTs, 7 retrospective observational studies, and 1 comparative unique study) were included, comparing P-CAB triple therapy to PPI triple therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis involved 8049 patients, with 4471 in the P-CAB intervention group and 3578 in the PPI control group across these studies. The analysis revealed a significant difference in eradication between VPZ triple therapy and PPI triple therapy in both RCTs and observational studies [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.22, < 0.0001] and (RR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.09-1.17, < 0.0001], respectively. However, no significant difference was found between tegoprazan (TPZ) triple therapy and PPI triple therapy in both RCTs and observational studies (RR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.93-1.16, = 0.5) and (RR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10, = 0.3), respectively.
CONCLUSION
VPZ-based triple therapy outperformed conventional PPI-based triple therapy in eradicating , positioning it as a highly effective first-line regimen. Additionally, TPZ-based triple therapy was non-inferior to classical PPI triple therapy.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter pylori; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Pyrroles; Amoxicillin; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic; Benzene Derivatives; Imidazoles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 38577188
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i9.1213 -
Endoscopy International Open Jun 2022Malignant disease accounts for up to 80 % of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) cases, which may be treated with duodenal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), surgical... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Malignant disease accounts for up to 80 % of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) cases, which may be treated with duodenal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), and more recently endoscopic-ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). These three treatments have not been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial. We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies published January 2015-February 2021 assessing treatment of malignant GOO using duodenal SEMS, endoscopic (EUS-GE) or surgical (laparoscopic or open) GJ. Efficacy outcomes assessed included technical and clinical success rates, GOO recurrence and reintervention. Safety outcomes included procedure-related bleeding or perforation, and stent-related events for the duodenal SEMS and EUS-GE arms. EUS-GE had a lower rate of technical success (95.3%) than duodenal SEMS (99.4 %) or surgical GJ (99.9%) ( = 0.0048). For duodenal SEMS vs. EUS-GE vs. surgical GJ, rates of clinical success (88.9 % vs. 89.0 % vs. 92.3 % respectively, = 0.49) were similar. EUS-GE had a lower rate of GOO recurrence based on limited data ( = 0.0036), while duodenal SEMS had a higher rate of reintervention ( = 0.041). Overall procedural complications were similar (duodenal SEMS 18.7 % vs. EUS-GE 21.9 % vs. surgical GJ 23.8 %, = 0.32), but estimated bleeding rate was lowest ( = 0.0048) and stent occlusion rate was highest ( = 0.0002) for duodenal SEMS. Duodenal SEMS, EUS-GE, and surgical GJ showed similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of malignant GOO. Duodenal SEMS had a lower procedure-related bleeding rate but higher rate of reintervention.
PubMed: 35692924
DOI: 10.1055/a-1794-0635 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.
RESULTS
Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Duodenum; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Cyst
PubMed: 37670106
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05789-4 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Jan 2016The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different.
Topics: Adenoma; Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26872081
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2016(01)06 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... 2021() is proved to be the main pathogenic agent of various diseases, including chronic gastritis, gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, and gastric cancer. In addition, chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
() is proved to be the main pathogenic agent of various diseases, including chronic gastritis, gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, and gastric cancer. In addition, chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis are common worldwide, which are supposed to increase the total mortality of patients. Epidemiologic evidence on the relationship between infection of the gallbladder and chronic cholecystitis/cholelithiasis still remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of overall studies to investigate the relationship between infection of the gallbladder and chronic cholecystitis/cholelithiasis. Two researchers searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to obtain all related and eligible studies published before July 2020. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis, heterogeneity, publication bias, and sensitivity analysis were also conducted. Twenty studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1735 participants and 1197 patients with chronic cholecystitis/cholelithiasis. species infection of the gallbladder was positively correlated with increased risk of chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis, especially (OR = 3.05; 95% CI, 1.81-5.14; = 23.5%). Besides, country-based subgroup analysis also showed a positive correlation between the gallbladder positivity and chronic cholecystitis/cholelithiasis risk. For Asian and non-Asian country studies, the ORs were 4.30 (95% CI, 1.76-10.50; = 37.4%) and 2.13 (95% CI, 1.23-3.70; = 0.0%), respectively. The association was more obvious using the bile sample and urease gene primer. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provided evidence that there is a positive correlation between infection in the gallbladder and increased risk of chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis.
Topics: Cholecystitis; Cholelithiasis; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans
PubMed: 33505946
DOI: 10.1155/2021/8886085 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y