-
Cancers May 2023Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a rescue technique for patients with malignant biliary obstruction who fail conventional treatment with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a rescue technique for patients with malignant biliary obstruction who fail conventional treatment with ERCP or EUS-guided biliary drainage. The technique has been successfully employed in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients not fit for surgery. However, the evidence for its use in malignant obstruction is less robust. This review article aims to evaluate the data available at present to better understand the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage.
METHODS
A detailed literature review was conducted and several databases were searched for any studies relating to EUS-GBD in malignant biliary obstruction. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for clinical success and adverse events.
RESULTS
Our search identified 298 studies related to EUS-GBD. The final analysis included 7 studies with 136 patients. The pooled rate of clinical success (95% CI) was 85% (78-90%, I: 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events (95% CI) was 13% (7-19%, I: 0%). Adverse events included: peritonitis, bleeding, bile leakage, stent migration, and stent occlusion. No deaths directly related to the procedure were reported; however, in some of the studies, deaths occurred due to disease progression.
CONCLUSION
This review supports the use of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage as a rescue option for patients who have failed conventional measures.
PubMed: 37296955
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112988 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023Patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) are still challenging to treat safely and effectively. Recently, double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS), bi-flanged metallic stents... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents and double-pigtail plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) are still challenging to treat safely and effectively. Recently, double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS), bi-flanged metallic stents (BFMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been employed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS-guided) drainage. However, there is little solid evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of using stents. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the LAMS and the PS.
METHOD
Till July 2022, a thorough database search was done, and studies that met the criteria were chosen. By using the RevMan software, the technical and clinical success and other secondary outcomes were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed between the LAMS and the BFMS.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies (two randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational) with 687 patients receiving metal stents and 771 patients receiving plastic stents were selected for final analysis. There was no significant risk of bias or publication bias. The odds ratios (OR) for technical and clinical success were 0.36 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.08, 1.52) and 2.26 (95%CI 1.62, 3.15), respectively. The OR for overall adverse events was 0.74 (95% CI 0.41, 1.34). In subgroup analysis, the LAMS and the BFMS showed the same outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Compared to DPS, LAMS had better clinical outcomes and fewer side effects when treating patients with WON.
Topics: Humans; Plastics; Treatment Outcome; Stents; Drainage; Necrosis; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36779694
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2164048 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2023to systematically review and meta-analyze the impact on morbidity and mortality of peritoneal drainage (PD) compared to laparotomy (LAP) in preterm neonates with... (Review)
Review
Laparotomy versus Peritoneal Drainage as Primary Treatment for Surgical Necrotizing Enterocolitis or Spontaneous Intestinal Perforation in Preterm Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AIM
to systematically review and meta-analyze the impact on morbidity and mortality of peritoneal drainage (PD) compared to laparotomy (LAP) in preterm neonates with surgical NEC (sNEC) or spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP).
METHODS
Medical databases were searched until June 2022 for studies comparing PD and LAP as primary surgical treatment of preterm neonates with sNEC or SIP. The primary outcome was survival during hospitalization; predefined secondary outcomes included need for parenteral nutrition at 90 days, time to reach full enteral feeds, need for subsequent laparotomy, duration of hospitalization and complications.
RESULTS
Three RCTs (N = 493) and 49 observational studies (N = 19,447) were included. No differences were found in the primary outcome for RCTs, but pooled observational data showed that, compared to LAP, infants with sNEC/SIP who underwent PD had lower survival [48 studies; N = 19,416; RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.79-0.90; GRADE: low]. Observational studies also showed that the subgroup of infants with sNEC had increased survival in the LAP group (30 studies; N = 9370; RR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.72-0.91; GRADE: low).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to LAP, PD as primary surgical treatment for sNEC or SIP has similar survival rates when analyzing data from RCTs. PD was associated with lower survival rates in observational studies.
PubMed: 37508667
DOI: 10.3390/children10071170 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, 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 odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.
Topics: Humans; Necrosis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Peritoneal Lavage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Video-Assisted Surgery
PubMed: 27083933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011383.pub2 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Jun 2023The role of prophylactic drainage (PD) in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) is not well-established. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The role of prophylactic drainage (PD) in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) is not well-established. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between the PD and non-drainage (ND) in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed up to December 2022. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included and meta-analyzed separately. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022371102.
RESULTS
Overall, 7 RCTs (783 patients) and 14 observational studies (4359 patients) were ultimately included. Data from RCTs indicated that patients in the ND group had a lower total complications rate (OR = 0.68; 95%CI:0.47-0.98; P = 0.04; I = 0%), earlier time to soft diet (MD = - 0.27; 95%CI: - 0.55 to 0.00; P = 0.05; I = 0%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD = - 0.98; 95%CI: - 1.71 to - 0.26; P = 0.007; I = 40%). While other outcomes including anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, pancreatic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, surgical-site infection, pulmonary infection, need for additional drainage, reoperation rate, readmission rate, and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analyses on observational studies showed good agreement with the pooled results from RCTs, with higher statistical power.
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis suggests that routine use of PD may not be necessary and even harmful in GC patients following gastrectomy. However, well-designed RCTs with risk-stratified randomization are still needed to validate the results of our study.
Topics: Humans; Stomach Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Gastrectomy; Drainage; Anastomotic Leak; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37270519
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03054-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Topics: Drainage; Gastrectomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Stomach Neoplasms; Time Factors
PubMed: 25961741
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008788.pub3 -
World Neurosurgery Jun 2023External ventricular drainage (EVD) is a key factor in the treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) but associated with risks and complications. Intraventricular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Treatment of Intraventricular Hemorrhage with External Ventricular Drainage and Fibrinolysis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Complications and Outcome.
BACKGROUND
External ventricular drainage (EVD) is a key factor in the treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) but associated with risks and complications. Intraventricular fibrinolysis (IVF) has been proposed to improve clinical outcome and reduce complications of EVD treatment. The following review and metaanalysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of IVH treatment with external ventricular drainage (EVD) and intraventricular fibrinolysis (IVF) with regards to complications and clinical outcomes.
METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines were followed preparing this review. Studies included in the meta-analysis were compared using forest plots and the related odds ratios.
RESULTS
After a literature search, 980 articles were identified and 65 and underwent full-text review. Forty-two articles were included in the review and meta-analysis. We found that bolted and antibiotic-coated catheters were superior to tunnelled/uncoated catheters (P < 0.001) and antibiotic- vs. silver-impregnated catheters (P < 0.001]) in preventing infection. Shunt dependency was related to the volume of blood in the ventricles but unaffected by IVF (P = 0.98). IVF promoted hematoma clearance, decreased mortality (22.4% vs. 40.9% with IVF vs. no IVF, respectively, P < 0.00001), improved good functional outcomes (47.2% [IVF] vs. 38.3% [no IVF], P = 0.03), and reduced the rate of catheter occlusion from 37.3% without IVF to 10.6% with IVF (P = 0.0003).
CONCLUSIONS
We present evidence and best practice recommendations for the treatment of IVH with EVD and intraventricular fibrinolysis. Our analysis further provides a comprehensive quantitative reference of the most relevant clinical endpoints for future studies on novel IVH technologies and treatments.
Topics: Humans; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Cerebral Ventricles; Drainage; Fibrinolytic Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36642373
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.01.021 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Mar 2022Liver abscess is a common cause of intra-abdominal infection and its treatment depends on the presentation. Laparoscopy, in addition to its classic benefits, has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Liver abscess is a common cause of intra-abdominal infection and its treatment depends on the presentation. Laparoscopy, in addition to its classic benefits, has particular advantages in the management of liver abscess but its role is not well defined and studies done in that field are heterogenous. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in the management of liver abscess.
METHODS
We realized a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies published in the 20 last years. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of recurrent or residual liver abscess after laparoscopic treatment.
RESULTS
We retrieved 190 studies regarding laparoscopic surgery in liver abscess and 17 studies were included in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. A total of 608 patients was included and 299 of them (49.1%) were treated by laparoscopic surgery. The indications were mainly failure of first line treatment (antibiotic treatment and/or percutaneous drainage and/or needle aspiration) and ruptured multiloculated, or caudate lobe liver abscess. The surgical gesture performed was laparoscopic drainage in all studies. The post-operative rate of recurrent or residual liver abscess after treatment by laparoscopy was 4.22% (95% CI: 2.29-7.07).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review showed that laparoscopic drainage had a considerable place in the management. The post-operative rate of recurrence was low with no mortality suggesting that laparoscopy is safe and feasible for liver abscess management.
PubMed: 35198179
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103308 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Mar 2021Cutaneous abscesses are common presentations to the emergency department. While the primary treatment for most abscesses is conventional incision and drainage (CID),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous abscesses are common presentations to the emergency department. While the primary treatment for most abscesses is conventional incision and drainage (CID), this is painful and can lead to multiple return visits. The loop drainage technique (LDT) has been proposed as an alternate, less-invasive approach to abscess management. The primary outcome of this study was to compare LDT with CID for skin and soft tissue abscesses.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of selected articles were assessed for all retrospective, prospective observational, and randomized controlled trials comparing treatment failures between LDT and CID among patients with skin and soft tissue abscesses. Data were dual extracted into a predefined worksheet and quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were summarized and presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed for adult and pediatric patients.
RESULTS
A total of 1,374 studies were identified with eight studies (n = 910 patients) selected for inclusion. Overall, CID failed in 69 of 487 patients (14.17%), while LDT failed in 35 of 423 patients (8.27%). There was an OR of 2.02 (95% CI = 1.29 to 3.18) in favor of higher failures in the CID group. This finding remained consistent with only randomized controlled trials (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.86), but no difference was identified in the adult or pediatric subgroups.
CONCLUSION
The LDT was associated with reduced treatment failures when compared with CID. Future studies should further assess the impact on pain, cosmetic outcomes, and health care costs.
Topics: Abscess; Adult; Child; Drainage; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Skin Diseases; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 33037713
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14151 -
Digestion 2023At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangial Drainage for the Treatment of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ). However, it is controversial as to which method is superior in terms of efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of ERCP and PTCD in matched cases of MOJ.
METHODS
The Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI databases were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2019, without language restrictions, that compared ERCP and PTCD in patients with MOJ. The primary outcome was the success rate for each procedure. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, serum total bilirubin level, length of hospital stay, hospital expense, complication rate, and survival. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,143 cases of ERCP and 854 cases of PTCD. The analysis demonstrated that jaundice remission in PTCD was equal to that in ERCP (mean difference [MD], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.56 to -2.93; p = 0.18). However, the length of hospital stay in the ERCP group was 3.03 days shorter than that in the PTCD group (MD, -2.41; 95% CI: -4.61 to -0.22; p = 0.03). ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.42-1.05); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.08). ERCP was also more cost-efficient (MD, -5.42; 95% CI: -5.52 to -5.32; p < 0.01). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of hospital stay (ERCP:PTCD = 8.73:12.95 days), hospital expenses (ERCP:PTCD = 5,104.13:5,866.75 RMB), and postoperative complications (ERCP:PTCD = 11.2%:9.1%) in both groups.
CONCLUSION
For remission of MOJ, PTCD and ERCP had similar clinical efficacy. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Considering that ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher cost efficiency, ERCP may be a superior initial treatment choice for MOJ.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Jaundice, Obstructive; Drainage; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36617409
DOI: 10.1159/000528020