-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Female; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26905229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub6 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). However, its risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). However, its risk factors are still unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the potential risk factors of DGE among patients undergoing PD or PPPD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrial.gov for studies that examined the clinical risk factors of DGE after PD or PPPD from inception through 31 July 2022. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs using random-effects or fixed-effects models. We also performed heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses.
RESULTS
The study included a total of 31 research studies, which involved 9205 patients. The pooled analysis indicated that out of 16 nonsurgical-related risk factors, three risk factors were found to be associated with an increased incidence of DGE. These risk factors were older age (OR 1.37, P =0.005), preoperative biliary drainage (OR 1.34, P =0.006), and soft pancreas texture (OR 1.23, P =0.04). On the other hand, patients with dilated pancreatic duct (OR 0.59, P =0.005) had a decreased risk of DGE. Among 12 operation-related risk factors, more blood loss (OR 1.33, P =0.01), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR 2.09, P <0.001), intra-abdominal collection (OR 3.58, P =0.001), and intra-abdominal abscess (OR 3.06, P <0.0001) were more likely to cause DGE. However, our data also revealed 20 factors did not support stimulative factors influencing DGE.
CONCLUSION
Age, preoperative biliary drainage, pancreas texture, pancreatic duct size, blood loss, POPF, intra-abdominal collection, and intra-abdominal abscess are significantly associated with DGE. This meta-analysis may have utility in guiding clinical practice for improvements in screening patients with a high risk of DGE and selecting appropriate treatment measures.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Gastroparesis; Pylorus; Pancreatic Fistula; Risk Factors; Postoperative Complications; Abdominal Abscess; Gastric Emptying
PubMed: 37073540
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000418 -
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2023To assess the safety and efficacy of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic pyloromyotomy in pediatrics, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess the safety and efficacy of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic pyloromyotomy in pediatrics, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted to identify studies that compared single-incision laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (SILP) and conventional laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (CLP) for infants with hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS). Meta-analysis was used to pool and compare variables such as operative time, time to full feeding, length of hospital stay, mucosal perforation, inadequate pyloromyotomy, wound infection, incisional hernia and overall complications.
RESULTS
Among the 490 infants with HPS in the seven studies, 205 received SILP and 285 received CLP. There was significant longer time to full feeding for SILP compared with CLP. However, pooling the results for SILP and CLP revealed no significant difference in operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS
SILP is a safe, feasible and effective surgical procedure for infants with HPS when compared to CLP. SILP is equivalent to CLP in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. We conclude that LS should be considered an acceptable option for HPS.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Child; Pyloric Stenosis, Hypertrophic; Pyloromyotomy; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Incisional Hernia; Pylorus; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37154949
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04402-z -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023In this systemic review and network meta-analysis, we investigated pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and different... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
In this systemic review and network meta-analysis, we investigated pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and different modifications of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) to evaluate the efficacy of different surgical procedures.
METHODS
A systemic search of six databases was conducted to identify studies comparing PD, PPPD, and DPPHR for treating pancreatic head benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed to compare different surgical procedures.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies were enrolled in the final synthesis. Three categories of a total of 29 indexes were investigated. The DPPHR group had better working ability, physical status, less loss of body weight, and less postoperative discomfort than the Whipple group, while both groups had no differences in quality of life (QoL), pain scale scores, and other 11 indexes. Network meta-analysis of a single procedure found that DPPHR had a larger probability of best performance in seven of eight analyzed indexes than PD or PPPD.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR and PD/PPPD have equal effects on improving QoL and pain relief, while PD/PPPD has more severe symptoms and more complications after surgery. PD, PPPD, and DPPHR procedures exhibit different strengths in treating pancreatic head benign and low-grade malignant lesions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022342427.
PubMed: 37066008
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1107613 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Length of Stay; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26837472
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011521.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022For people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
For people who are malnourished and unable to consume food by mouth, nasoenteral feeding tubes are commonly used for the administration of liquid food and drugs. Postpyloric placement is when the tip of the feeding tube is placed beyond the pylorus, in the small intestine. Endoscopic-guided placement of postpyloric feeding tubes is the most common approach. Usually, an endoscopist and two or more medical professionals perform this procedure using a guidewire technique. The position of the tube is then confirmed with fluoroscopy or radiography, which requires moving people undergoing the procedure to the radiology department. Alternatively, electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes can be performed by a single trained nurse, at the bedside and with less equipment than endoscopic-guided placement. Hence, electromagnetic-guided placement may represent a promising alternative to endoscopic-guided placement, especially in settings where endoscopy and radiographic facilities are unavailable or difficult to access.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of electromagnetic-guided placement of postpyloric nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey until February 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. We contacted the study authors for missing data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials comparing electromagnetic-guided placement with endoscopic-guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes. We excluded prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series or case reports.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and extracted data from the included trials. The primary outcomes were technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis. The secondary outcomes were the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes, direct healthcare costs, and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four randomised controlled trials with 541 participants which met our inclusion criteria. All trials had methodological limitations, and lack of blinding of participants and investigators was a major source of bias. We had 'some concerns' for the overall risk of bias in all trials. Electromagnetic-guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes may result in little to no difference in technical success in insertion compared to endoscopic-guided placement (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I = 81%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in a difference in the proportion of participants with aspiration pneumonitis compared to endoscopic-guided placement, but these results are unclear (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.18; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement may result in little to no difference in the time for postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD 4.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.47 to 8.59; I = 97%; low-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely reduces direct healthcare costs compared to endoscopic-guided placement (MD -127.69 US dollars, 95% CI -135.71 to -119.67; moderate-certainty evidence). Electromagnetic-guided placement likely results in little to no difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic-guided placement (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty evidence that electromagnetic-guided placement at the bedside results in little to no difference in technical success in insertion and aspiration pneumonitis, compared to endoscopic-guided placement. The heterogeneity of the healthcare professionals who performed the procedures and the small sample sizes limited our confidence in the evidence. Future research should be based on large studies with well-defined endpoints to potentially elucidate the differences between these two procedures.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Electromagnetic Phenomena; Endoscopy; Humans; Pneumonia; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36189639
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013865.pub2 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Jul 2020Due to better functional outcomes, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) has been widely applied for early gastric cancer (EGC) patients as an alternative to distal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Due to better functional outcomes, pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) has been widely applied for early gastric cancer (EGC) patients as an alternative to distal gastrectomy (DG). However, controversies still persist regarding the surgical efficacy and oncological safety of PPG.
METHODS
Original studies comparing PPG and DG for EGC were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to December 2019. The weight mean difference, standardized mean difference, or odds risk was used to calculate the short-term and long-term outcomes between the two groups.
RESULTS
Twenty-one comparative studies comprising 4871 patients (1955 in the PPG group and 2916 in the DG group) were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis. PPG showed longer hospital day, decreased harvested lymph nodes, and more delayed gastric emptying. However, PPG had the benefits of lower incidence of anastomosis leakage, early dumping syndrome, gastritis and bile reflux, and better recovery of total protein, albumin, hemoglobin, and weight. No difference was found in operative time, blood loss, and overall complications. Moreover, the long-term survival and recurrence rate were similar in two groups.
CONCLUSION
Owing to the non-inferiority of surgery and oncology outcomes and the superiority of function outcomes in PPG, we revealed that PPG can be clinically applicable instead of DG in EGC. However, more high-quality comparative studies and randomized clinical trials would be required for further confirmation.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Pylorus; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32641052
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01910-y -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Apr 2023Intraoperative pyloric drainage in esophagectomy may reduce delayed gastric emptying (DGE) but is associated with risk of biliary reflux and other complications.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative pyloric drainage in esophagectomy may reduce delayed gastric emptying (DGE) but is associated with risk of biliary reflux and other complications. Existing evidence is heterogenous. Hence, this meta-analysis aims to compare outcomes of intraoperative pyloric drainage versus no intervention in patients undergoing esophagectomy.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane were searched from inception up to July 2022. Exclusion criteria were lack of objective evidence (e.g., symptoms of nausea or vomiting) of DGE. The primary outcome was incidence of DGE. Secondary outcomes were incidence of pulmonary complications, bile reflux, anastomotic leak, operative time, and mortality.
RESULTS
There were nine studies including 1164 patients (pyloric drainage n = 656, no intervention n = 508). Intraoperative pyloric drainage included pyloroplasty (n = 166 (25.3%)), pyloromyotomy (n = 214 (32.6%)), botulinum toxin injection (n = 168 (25.6%)), and pyloric dilatation (n = 108 (16.5%)). Pyloric drainage is associated with reduced DGE (odds ratio (OR): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.74, I = 50%). There was no significant difference in incidence of pulmonary complications (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51-1.08; I = 0%), biliary reflux (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.80-2.54, I = 0%), anastomotic leak (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.48-1.29; I = 0%), operative time (MD: + 22.16 min, 95% CI: - 13.27-57.59 min; I = 76%), and mortality (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.48-2.64, I = 0%) between the pyloric drainage and no intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Pyloric drainage in esophagectomy reduces DGE but has similar post-operative outcomes. Further prospective studies should be carried out to compare various pyloric drainage techniques and its use in esophagectomy, especially minimally-invasive esophagectomy.
Topics: Humans; Anastomotic Leak; Gastroparesis; Esophagectomy; Prospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Pylorus; Drainage; Gastric Emptying; Esophageal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36650418
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05573-w -
Surgery For Obesity and Related... Jun 2018Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an established operation for severe obesity, there is controversy regarding the extent to which the antrum is excised. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an established operation for severe obesity, there is controversy regarding the extent to which the antrum is excised. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effect on perioperative complications and medium-term outcomes of antral resecting versus antral preserving sleeve gastrectomy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1946 to April 2017. Eligible studies compared antral resection (staple line commencing 2-3 cm from pylorus) with antral preservation (>5 cm from pylorus) in patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy for obesity. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model, and risk of bias within and across studies was assessed using validated scoring systems. Eight studies (619 participants) were included: 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 cohort studies. Overall follow-up was 94% for the specified outcomes of each study. Mean percentage excess weight loss was 62% at 12 months (7 studies; 574 patients) and 67% at 24 months (4 studies; 412 patients). Antral resection was associated with significant improvement in percentage excess weight loss at 24-month follow-up (mean 70% versus 61%; standardized mean difference .95; confidence interval .35-1.58, P<.005), an effect that remained significant when cohort studies were excluded. There was no difference in incidence of perioperative bleeding, leak, or de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease. According to the available evidence, antral resection is associated with better medium-term weight loss compared with antral preservation, without increased risk of surgical complications. Further randomized clinical trials are indicated to confirm this finding.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Bariatric Surgery; Gastrectomy; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Laparoscopy; Obesity, Morbid; Organ Sparing Treatments; Postoperative Complications; Pyloric Antrum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss
PubMed: 29602713
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.02.021 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2023Gastric Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (GPOEM) has been developed as an effective treatment option for patients with medically refractory gastroparesis. Other endoscopic...
Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy versus pyloric injection of botulinum toxin for the treatment of gastroparesis: our institutional experience and a systematic review of the literature.
INTRODUCTION
Gastric Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (GPOEM) has been developed as an effective treatment option for patients with medically refractory gastroparesis. Other endoscopic options, such as pyloric injection of botulinum toxin (Botox), is often performed with limited efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate GPOEM for the treatment of gastroparesis and compare its efficacy to Botox injection results reported in the literature.
METHODS
A retrospective review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent a GPOEM for the treatment of gastroparesis between September 2018 and June 2022. Changes in Gastric Emptying Scintigraphy (GES) studies and Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom (GCSI) scores from the preoperative to postoperative period were analyzed. In addition, a systematic review was conducted to identify all publications reporting the outcomes of Botox injections for the treatment of gastroparesis.
RESULTS
A total of 65 patients (51 female, 14 male) underwent a GPOEM during the study period. Twenty-eight patients (22 female, 6 male) had both preoperative and postoperative GES studies in addition to GCSI scores. The etiologies of gastroparesis were diabetic (n = 4), idiopathic (n = 18), and postsurgical (n = 6). Fifty percent of these patients had undergone previous failed interventions including Botox injections (n = 6), gastric stimulator placement (n = 2), and endoscopic pyloric dilation (n = 6). Outcomes showed a significant decrease in GES percentages (mean difference = - 23.5%, p < 0.001) and GCSI scores (mean difference = - 9.6, p = 0.02) postoperatively. In the systematic review for Botox, transient mean improvements in postoperative GES percentages and GCSI scores were reported at 10.1% and 4.0, respectively.
CONCLUSION
GPOEM leads to significant improvement in GES percentages and GCSI scores postoperatively and is superior to Botox injection results reported in the literature.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Gastroparesis; Gastric Emptying; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Pylorus; Treatment Outcome; Myotomy
PubMed: 37430121
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10262-z