-
Comparison of endoscopic resection techniques for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors: systematic review.Endoscopy International Open Aug 2021Regardless of size, duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (dNETs) should be considered potentially malignant. A complete resection without complications is essential to... (Review)
Review
Regardless of size, duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (dNETs) should be considered potentially malignant. A complete resection without complications is essential to increase safety procedures. The aim of this review was to describe effectiveness and possible complications of endoscopic techniques resection for resectioning dNETs in patients with tumors ≤ 20 mm in diameter. An electronic bibliographic search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar virtual databases. The types of intervention were endoscopic mucosal resection alone (EMR) or with cap (EMR-C), with a ligation device (EMR-L), with previous elevation of the tumor (EMR-I) or with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); argon plasm coagulation (APC), and polypectomy. The outcome measures adopted were presence of free margin associated with tumor resection, tumor recurrence, complications (bleeding and perforation), and length of the procedure. Ten publications were included with the result of 224 dNET resections. EMR alone and polypectomy resulted in the most significantly compromised margin. The most frequent complication was bleeding (n = 21), followed by perforation (n = 8). Recurrence occurred in 13 cases, the majority of those under EMR or EMR-I. EMR-C or EMR-I should be preferred for resectioning of dNETs. Polypectomy should not be indicated for resection of dNETs due to the high occurrence of incomplete resections. EMR alone must be avoided due a higher frequency of compromised margin and recurrent surgery. ESD was associated with no recurrence, however, but an increased occurrence of bleeding and perforation.
PubMed: 34447867
DOI: 10.1055/a-1487-5594 -
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of...
Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of PSM and RCT Studies.
BACKGROUND
To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) studies and randomized controlled study (RCT) to compare the safety and overall effect of RG to LG for patients with GC.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible PSM and RCT studies before July 2021. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, we identified 19 PSM studies and 1 RCT of RG LG, enrolling a total of 13,446 patients (6,173 and 7,273 patients underwent RG and LG, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin distance, distal resection margin distance, abdominal bleeding, ileus, anastomosis site leakage, duodenal stump leakage rate, conversion rate, reoperation, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing RG with LG, RG has a longer operative time ( < 0.00001), less blood loss (p <0.0001), earlier time to first flatus ( = 0.0003), earlier time to oral intake ( = 0.0001), shorter length of stay ( = 0.0001), less major complications ( = 0.0001), lower overall complications ( = 0.0003), more retrieved lymph nodes ( < 0.0001), and more cost ( < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of oncological adequacy and safety, RG is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for gastric cancer but takes more cost in comparison with LG.
PubMed: 35004278
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.759509 -
Cureus Feb 2024This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of surgical interventions in improving the quality of life for patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP). A thorough... (Review)
Review
This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of surgical interventions in improving the quality of life for patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP). A thorough literature search, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, identified 11 studies that focused on patient-reported outcomes after surgical treatments, including pancreatic resections, drainage procedures, and duodenum-preserving head resections. The findings indicate that organ-preserving procedures, notably the Frey and Beger operations, significantly enhance pain control and overall quality of life while reducing analgesic dependency. This review provides crucial insights into the long-term efficacy and comparative benefits of different surgical approaches, highlighting the need for personalized surgical strategies in CP management. It emphasizes the necessity for standardized outcome measures and further comparative research to refine CP treatment protocols.
PubMed: 38476813
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.53989 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2015To identify the most effective treatment of duodenal stump fistula (DSF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. (Review)
Review
AIM
To identify the most effective treatment of duodenal stump fistula (DSF) after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CILEA Archive, BMJ Clinical Evidence and UpToDate databases were analyzed. Three hundred eighty-eight manuscripts were retrieved and analyzed and thirteen studies published between 1988 and 2014 were finally selected according to the inclusion criteria, for a total of 145 cases of DSF, which represented our group of study. Only patients with DSF after gastrectomy for malignancy were selected. Data about patients' characteristics, type of treatment, short and long-term outcomes were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
In the 13 studies different types of treatment were proposed: conservative approach, surgical approach, percutaneous approach and endoscopic approach (3 cases). The overall mortality rate was 11.7% for the entire cohort. The more frequent complications were sepsis, abscesses, peritonitis, bleeding, pneumonia and multi-organ failure. Conservative approach was performed in 6 studies for a total of 79 patients, in patients with stable general condition, often associated with percutaneous approach. A complete resolution of the leakage was achieved in 92.3% of these patients, with a healing time ranging from 17 to 71 d. Surgical approach included duodenostomy, duodeno-jejunostomy, pancreatoduodenectomy and the use of rectus muscle flap. In-hospital stay of patients who underwent relaparotomy ranged from 1 to 1035 d. The percutaneous approach included drainage of abscesses or duodenostomy (32 cases) and percutaneous biliary diversion (13 cases). The median healing time in this group was 43 d.
CONCLUSION
Conservative approach is the treatment of choice, eventually associated with percutaneus drainage. Surgical approach should be reserved for severe cases or when conservative approaches fail.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Drainage; Duodenal Diseases; Duodenum; Gastrectomy; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Length of Stay; Reoperation; Stomach Neoplasms; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26140005
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7571 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology 2020In 2013, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) caused over 300 000 deaths globally. Low-income and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected. However, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
In 2013, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) caused over 300 000 deaths globally. Low-income and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected. However, there is limited information regarding risk factors of perioperative mortality rates in these countries.
OBJECTIVE
To assess perioperative mortality rates from complicated PUD in Africa and associated risk factors.
DESIGN
We performed a systematic review and a random-effect meta-analysis of literature describing surgical management of complicated PUD in Africa. We used subgroup analysis and meta-regression analyses to investigate sources of variations in the mortality rates and to assess the risk factors contributing to mortality.
RESULTS
From 95 published reports, 10 037 patients underwent surgery for complicated PUD. The majority of the ulcers (78%) were duodenal, followed by gastric (14%). Forty-one per cent of operations were for perforation, 22% for obstruction and 9% for bleeding. The operations consisted of vagotomy (38%), primary repair (34%), resection and reconstruction (12%), and drainage procedures (6%). The overall PUD mortality rate was 6.6% (95% CI 5.4% to 8.1%). It increased to 9.7% (95% CI 7.1 to 13.0) when we limited the analysis to studies published after the year 2000. The correlation was higher between perforated PUD and mortality rates (r=0.41, p<0.0001) than for bleeding PUD and mortality rates (r=0.32, p=0.001). Non-significant differences in mortality rates existed between sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and North Africa and within SSA.
CONCLUSION
Perioperative mortality rates from complicated PUD in Africa are substantially high and could be increasing over time, and there are possible regional differences.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32128227
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000350 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine (SIBO) is a pathological growth of the intestinal microbiota in the small intestine that causes clinical symptoms and can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Prevalence of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Patients with Non-Alcoholic Liver Diseases: NAFLD, NASH, Fibrosis, Cirrhosis-A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.
Bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine (SIBO) is a pathological growth of the intestinal microbiota in the small intestine that causes clinical symptoms and can lead to digestive and absorption disorders. There is increasing evidence that people with NAFLD have a distinct gut microflora profile as well metabolome changes compared to people without NAFLD. Thorough analysis of observational and RCT studies in the current databases (EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cinahl, Clinical Trials) was conducted from 3 November 2021 to 21 June 2022. The following inclusion criteria were applied: confirmed NAFLD, NASH, LIVER FIBROSIS, CIRRHOSIS due to steatosis; diagnostic methods of liver diseases—biopsy, elastography, transabdominal ultrasound; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score; confirmed SIBO; diagnostic methods of SIBO−breath tests (hydrogen test; methane test and mix test; duodenal and jejunal aspiration before any type of intervention; adults above 18yo; number of participants ≥20; full articles. We excluded review articles, populations with HBV/HCV infection and alcohol etiology and interventions that may affect NAFLD or SIBO treatment. The quality of each study methodology was classified by means of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool (RCT) and Newcastle—Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale adapted for cross-sectional, cohort and case-control studies. The random effects meta-analysis of outcomes for which ≥2 studies contributed data was conducted. The I2 index to measure heterogeneity and the χ2 test of homogeneity (statistically significant heterogeneity p < 0.05) were applied. For categorical outcome, the pooled event rate (effect size) was calculated. This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. We initially identified 6643 studies, from which 18 studies were included in final meta-analysis. The total number of patients was 1263. Accepted SIBO diagnostic methods were both available breath tests (n-total = 15) and aspirate culture (n-total = 3). We found that among patients with non-alcoholic liver diseases, the random overall event rate of SIBO was 0.350 (95% CI, 0.244−0.472), p = 0.017. The subgroup analysis regarding a type of diagnosis revealed that the lowest ER was among patients who developed simultaneously NAFLD, NASH and fibrosis: 0.197 (95% CI, 0.054−0.510) as compared to other annotated subgroups. The highest prevalence of SIBO was observed in the NASH subgroup: 0.411 (95% CI, 0.219−0.634). There were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of SIBO in different subgroups (p = 0.854). Statistically significant heterogeneity between studies was estimated (I2 = 86.17%, p = 0.00). Egger’s test did not indicate a publication bias (df = 16, p = 0.885). A meta-regression using a random-effects model revealed that higher percentage of males in the population with liver diseases is a predisposing factor toward SIBO (Q = 4.11, df = 1, p = 0.0426 with coefficient = 0.0195, SE = 0.0096, Z = 2.03). We showed that the prevalence of SIBO in patients with chronic non-alcoholic liver diseases can be as high as 35%, and it increases with the percentage of men in the population. The prevalence of SIBO does not differ significantly depending on the type of chronic liver disease. Despite the high heterogeneity and moderate and low quality of included studies, our meta-analysis suggests the existence of a problem of SIBO in the population of patients with non-alcoholic liver diseases, and the presence of SIBO, in turn, determines the therapeutic treatment of such type of patients, which indicates the need for further research in this area. The study protocol was registered with the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022341473).
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Liver Cirrhosis; Intestine, Small
PubMed: 36558421
DOI: 10.3390/nu14245261 -
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 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2020The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for survival of patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for survival of patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or local resection (LR). PubMed database was searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 software. Twenty-seven observational studies involving 1103 patients were included in the review. The overall morbidity and 30-day mortality was 27% and 0.5% respectively. The median (range) 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 87% (60-100%) and 71% (44-100%) respectively. In meta-analyses, factors associated with shorter DFS included male sex, mitotic index >5/50 high-power fields, high risk, tumor size >5 cm, and the PD procedure. Factors associated with shorter OS included mitotic index >5/50 high-power fields and tumor size >5 cm. Patients in PD group had a higher incidence of mitotic index >5/50 HPF, a higher incidence of high-risk classification, a higher incidence of tumors in the second portion of the duodenum, a larger tumor size, a longer duration of operation, more intraoperative blood loss, a greater blood transfusion requirement, a higher morbidity rate, a longer hospital stay, and an increased recurrence rate than those in LR group. In conclusion, the current literature review demonstrates that the postoperative prognosis of duodenal GIST is promising and mainly affected by tumor factors. The choice of the surgical approach should depend on the anatomical location and tumor size.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30853211
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.02.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Refractory peptic ulcers are ulcers in the stomach or duodenum that do not heal after eight to 12 weeks of medical treatment or those that are associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Refractory peptic ulcers are ulcers in the stomach or duodenum that do not heal after eight to 12 weeks of medical treatment or those that are associated with complications despite medical treatment. Recurrent peptic ulcers are peptic ulcers that recur after healing of the ulcer. Given the number of deaths due to peptic ulcer-related complications and the long-term complications of medical treatment (increased incidence of fracture), it is unclear whether medical or surgical intervention is the better treatment option in people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015 to identify randomised trials and non-randomised studies, using search strategies. We also searched the references of included studies to identify further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing medical treatment with surgical treatment in people with refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer, 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 planned to calculate the risk ratio, mean difference, standardised mean difference, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with Review Manager 5 based on intention-to-treat analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included only one non-randomised study published 30 years ago in the review. This study included 77 participants who had gastric ulcer and in whom medical therapy (histamine H2 receptor blockers, antacids, and diet) had failed after an average duration of treatment of 29 months. The authors do not state whether these were recurrent or refractory ulcers. It appears that the participants did not have previous complications such as bleeding or perforation. Of the 77 included participants, 37 participants continued to have medical therapy while 40 participants received surgical therapy (antrectomy with or without vagotomy; subtotal gastrectomy with or without vagotomy; vagotomy; pyloroplasty and suture of the ulcer; suture or closure of ulcer without vagotomy or excision of the ulcer; proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy alone; suture or closure of the ulcer with proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy). Whether to use medical or surgical treatment was determined by participant's or treating physician's preference.The study authors reported that two participants in the medical treatment group (2 out of 37; 5.4%) had gastric cancer, which was identified by repeated biopsy. They did not report the proportion of participants who had gastric cancer in the surgical treatment group. They also did not report the implications of the delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer in the medical treatment group. They did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (that is health-related quality of life (using any validated scale), adverse events and serious adverse events, peptic ulcer bleeding, peptic ulcer perforation, abdominal pain, and long-term mortality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no studies that provide the relative benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers. Studies that evaluate the natural history of recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers are urgently required to determine whether randomised controlled trials comparing medical versus surgical management in patients with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers or both are necessary. Such studies will also provide information for the design of such randomised controlled trials. A minimum follow-up of two to three years will allow the calculation of the incidence of complications and gastric cancer (in gastric ulcers only) in recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers. In addition to complications related to treatment and disease, health-related quality of life and loss of productivity should also be measured.
Topics: Antacids; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Recurrence; Stomach Neoplasms; Stomach Ulcer; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 27025289
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011523.pub2