-
Cancer Imaging : the Official... Oct 2017Malignant obstructive jaundice is a common problem in the clinic. Currently, the generally applied treatment methods are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Malignant obstructive jaundice is a common problem in the clinic. Currently, the generally applied treatment methods are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). Nevertheless, there has not been a uniform conclusion published on either efficacy of the two types of drainage or the incidence rate of complications. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice, to determine whether there is any difference between percutaneous and endoscopic biliary drainage, with respect to efficacy and incidence rate of overall complications.
METHODS
The enrolled studies contain a total of three randomized controlled trials and eleven retrospective studies, which together encompass 2246 patients with PTBD and 8100 patients with EBD.
RESULTS
Our analysis indicates that there is no difference between PTBD and EBD with regard to therapeutic success rate (%), overall complication (%), intraperitoneal bile leak, 30-day mortality, sepsis, or duodenal perforation (%). Cholangitis and pancreatitis after PTBD were lower than after EBD, with odds ratios (OR) of 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31 to 0.74) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.52), respectively. Incidences of bleeding and tube dislocation for PTBD were higher than EBD, OR of 1.81 (95% CI, 1.35 to 2.44) and 3.41 (95% CI, 1.10 to 10.60).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates certain advantages for both PTBD and EBD. In the clinical practice, it is advised to choose specifically either PTBD or EBD, based on location of obstruction, purpose of drainage (as a preoperative procedure or a palliative treatment) and level of experience in biliary drainage at individual treatment centers.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Drainage; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Humans; Jaundice, Obstructive; Publication Bias; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 29037223
DOI: 10.1186/s40644-017-0129-1 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Endoscopy International Open Feb 2023Credentialing, the process through which an institution assesses and validates an endoscopist's qualifications to independently perform a procedure, can vary by region... (Review)
Review
Credentialing, the process through which an institution assesses and validates an endoscopist's qualifications to independently perform a procedure, can vary by region and country. Little is known about these inter-societal and geographic differences. We aimed to systematically characterize credentialing recommendations and requirements worldwide. We conducted a systematic review of credentialing practices among gastrointestinal and endoscopy societies worldwide. An electronic search as well as hand-search of World Endoscopy Organization members' websites was performed for credentialing documents. Abstracts were screened in duplicate and independently. Data were collected on procedures included in each document (e. g. colonoscopy, ERCP) and types of credentialing statements (procedural volume, key performance indicators (KPIs), and competency assessments). The primary objective was to qualitatively describe and compare the available credentialing recommendations and requirements from the included studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data when appropriate. We screened 653 records and included 20 credentialing documents from 12 societies. Guidelines most commonly included credentialing statements for colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and ERCP. For colonoscopy, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 150 to 275 and adenoma detection rate (ADR) from 20 % to 30%. For EGD, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 130 to 1000, and duodenal intubation rate of 95 % to 100%. For ERCP, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 100 to 300 with selective duct cannulation success rate of 80 % to 90 %. Guidelines also reported on flexible sigmoidoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound. While some metrics such as ADR were relatively consistent among societies, there was substantial variation among societies with respect to procedural volume and KPI statements.
PubMed: 36845269
DOI: 10.1055/a-1981-3047 -
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 -
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 -
Endoscopy International Open Aug 2018Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as an option for treatment of esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. However, there is no consensus on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as an option for treatment of esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. However, there is no consensus on the role of ESD in duodenal tumors.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in sporadic non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs), including local experience. We conducted a search in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library up to August 2017 to identify studies that compared both techniques reporting at least one main outcome (en-bloc/complete resection, local recurrence). Pooled outcomes were calculated under fixed and random-effect models. Subgroup analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 753 patients presenting with 784 NASDTs (242 ESD, 542 EMR) in 14 studies were included. Tumor size (MD: 5.88, [CI95 %: 2.15, 9.62], = 0.002, I = 79 %) and procedure time (MD: 65.65, [CI95 %: 40.39, 90.92], < 0.00001, I = 88 %) were greater in the ESD group. En-bloc resection rate was significantly higher in Asian studies (OR: 2.16 [CI95 %: 1.15, 4.08], = 0.02, I : 46 %). ESD provided a higher complete resection rate (OR: 1.63 [I95 %: 1.06, 2.50], = 0.03, I : 59 %), but there was no risk difference in the risk of local recurrence (RD: - 0.03 [CI95 %: - 0.07, 0.01], = 0.15, I : 0 %) or delayed bleeding. ESD was associated with an increased number of intraoperative perforations [RD: 0.12 (CI95 %: 0.04, 0.20), = 0.002, I : 56 %] and emergency surgery for delayed perforations. The inclusion of eligible studies was limited to retrospective series with inequalities in comparative groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Duodenal ESD for NASDTs may achieve higher en-bloc and complete resections at the expense of a greater perforation rate compared to EMR. The impact on local recurrence remains uncertain.
PubMed: 30083591
DOI: 10.1055/a-0579-9050