-
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Aug 2021Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), a precursor of gastric adenocarcinoma, is challenging to diagnose with white light endoscopy (WLE) and can be missed by random... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), a precursor of gastric adenocarcinoma, is challenging to diagnose with white light endoscopy (WLE) and can be missed by random gastric biopsies. Narrowband imaging (NBI) may potentially improve the detection of GIM. However, pooled estimates from prospective studies are lacking.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing NBI and WLE alone for detection of GIM and synchronous dysplasia. Primary outcome was pooled detection rate of GIM by NBI compared with WLE in prospective studies. The secondary outcome was concurrent dysplasia detection.
RESULTS
Ten studies were found eligible from 306 articles screened. Eight prospective studies were found eligible for primary endpoint of GIM detection. Two other retrospective studies were included for dysplasia detection. A total of 1366 subjects (694 males, 54.4 ± 5.08 years) underwent upper endoscopy. GIM was detected in 482 (35.3%) subjects. NBI detected GIM in 32% additional subjects (70% vs 38%, RR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34-2.37; P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed newer NBI scopes (GIF260) detected significantly more GIM than WLE (RR 2.47; 95% CI 1.63-3.76; P < 0.01) but not the older (H180) NBI endoscopes (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.93-1.88; P = 0.11). There was moderate heterogeneity between the studies (I = 63%). In five studies (n = 628) that reported dysplasia, there was no significant difference between NBI and WLE in dysplasia detection (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.81-1.47; P = 0.58).
CONCLUSION
Narrowband imaging can significantly increase the detection of GIM when used in addition to standard white light exam during an upper endoscopy.
Topics: Female; Gastroscopy; Humans; Hyperplasia; Male; Metaplasia; Middle Aged; Narrow Band Imaging; Precancerous Conditions; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 34090306
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15564 -
Annals of Gastroenterology 2020Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) are increasingly found during upper endoscopy. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an...
BACKGROUND
Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) are increasingly found during upper endoscopy. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for the endoscopic resection of SNADET. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases from inception to August 2019, which included Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and In-Process and other non-indexed citations. The primary outcome assessed was the pooled clinical success rate of UEMR. Secondary outcomes included rate of resection, pooled rate of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma (HGIC), and pooled rate of adverse events. Meta-regression analysis was performed based on tumor size.
RESULTS
A total of 8 study arms were included for analysis with UEMR performed in a total of 258 lesions. The pooled clinical success rate was 89.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.4-94.1). removal was achieved in 84.6% of treated lesions (95%CI 75.5-90.7). The pooled rate of HGIC was 24.7% (95%CI 10.3-48.3). The pooled rate of adverse events was 6.9% (95%CI 2.5-17.9). This included 10 total adverse events, with the majority being self-limited delayed bleeding. There were no duodenal perforations.
CONCLUSIONS
UEMR for endoscopic resection of SNADET has a high efficacy. In addition, this technique has a high rate of resection and an acceptable adverse event profile. Given these data, UEMR should be considered as a method for endoscopic resection of SNADET.
PubMed: 32624658
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2020.0504 -
Digestive and Liver Disease : Official... Jun 2023Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies.
CONCLUSION
Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.
Topics: Humans; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Duodenum; Duodenal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Intestinal Mucosa; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36195547
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.09.001 -
Nutrients Aug 2019It has been suggested that in doubtful cases of coeliac disease, a high CD3 T-cell receptor gamma delta (TCRγδ) intraepithelial lymphocyte count increases the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Accuracy of Both Gamma Delta+ Intraepithelial Lymphocytes and Coeliac Lymphogram Evaluated by Flow Cytometry for Coeliac Disease Diagnosis.
UNLABELLED
It has been suggested that in doubtful cases of coeliac disease, a high CD3 T-cell receptor gamma delta (TCRγδ) intraepithelial lymphocyte count increases the likelihood of coeliac disease.
AIM
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both an isolated increase of TCRγδ cells and a coeliac lymphogram (increase of TCRγδ decrease of CD3 intraepithelial lymphocytes) evaluated by flow cytometry in the diagnosis of coeliac disease.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were: an article that allows for the construction of a 2 × 2 table of true and false positive and true and false negative values. A diagnostic accuracy test meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The search provided 49 relevant citations, of which 6 were selected for the analysis, which represented 519 patients and 440 controls. Coeliac lymphogram: The pooled S and Sp were 93% and 98%, without heterogeneity. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99). TCRγδ: Pooled S and Sp were both 95%, with significant heterogeneity. The AUC was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98). : Both TCRγδ count and coeliac lymphogram assessed by flow cytometry in duodenal mucosal samples are associated with a high level of diagnostic accuracy for and against coeliac disease.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomarkers; CD3 Complex; Celiac Disease; Child; Child, Preschool; Duodenum; Female; Flow Cytometry; Humans; Immunophenotyping; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intestinal Mucosa; Intraepithelial Lymphocytes; Lymphocyte Count; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell, gamma-delta; Reproducibility of Results; Young Adult
PubMed: 31443602
DOI: 10.3390/nu11091992 -
Burns : Journal of the International... Sep 2021Major burns complicated by stress ulceration and perforation of the stomach or duodenum is a recognized clinical phenomenon. Colonic perforation in burns patients is not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major burns complicated by stress ulceration and perforation of the stomach or duodenum is a recognized clinical phenomenon. Colonic perforation in burns patients is not common, and the overall incidence, diagnosis, intervention undertaken and mortality is incompletely described in the literature.
METHOD
We performed a systematic review of the literature on severe burns resulting in colonic perforation during the initial admission period. Relevant studies from January 1975 to June 2020 were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, total body surface area (TBSA) and anatomical region of burn, site of colonic perforation and management, nutrition, sepsis and microbiology, length of stay and overall outcome were extracted. We present a case series of five burns patients who had colonic perforations in our Specialist Burns Center.
RESULTS
We identified 54 studies, of which nine (two case series and seven case reports) met the inclusion criteria. Colonic perforation following burns was most common in middle-aged male patients with a proportion of patients having a history of mental health issues. In most cases, the TBSA associated with a colonic perforation was ≥30% (11/16 patients, 69%). Perforations mainly affected the right side of the colon (12/16 patients, 75%), usually occurring after the second week of admission (13/16 patients, 81%). Right-sided colonic perforations were associated with an increased mortality rate compared to left-sided perforations (42% vs 25%).
CONCLUSIONS
The current literature is mainly limited to case series and case reports and confirms that colonic perforations in burns patients are rare. Colonic perforations are related to the systemic effect of burn injuries including sepsis and gastrointestinal stasis. We have identified patients who are at higher risk of developing colonic perforations and have described the common findings in these patients. Through greater awareness early diagnosis and prompt intervention may be achieved to improve outcomes and reduce associated morbidity and mortality.
Topics: Body Surface Area; Burns; Colonic Diseases; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Sepsis
PubMed: 33980400
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2021.04.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020The review is withdrawn as it has not been maintained since its first publication in 2001 (searches date back to the year 2000). Since then, new trials have been...
The review is withdrawn as it has not been maintained since its first publication in 2001 (searches date back to the year 2000). Since then, new trials have been published that may or may not change the conclusions of the review. A new team of authors overtook the review on 26.10.2020, and the new review is expected to be published by the beginning of 2022. The review will be prepared based on most recent Cochrane methods. Readers may still find the outdated review on the CDSR (the Cochrane Library).
Topics: Common Bile Duct Diseases; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sphincter of Oddi; Sphincterotomy
PubMed: 33107593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001509.pub2 -
Digestive Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) 2022An increase in the incidence of duodenal adenocarcinoma has been recently reported. However, little is known about the risk factors for duodenal adenocarcinoma, which...
INTRODUCTION
An increase in the incidence of duodenal adenocarcinoma has been recently reported. However, little is known about the risk factors for duodenal adenocarcinoma, which are important for screening purposes. We, therefore, aimed to conduct a systematic review to identify risk factors for non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma.
METHODS
A medical literature search was performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Japan Medical Abstracts Society, and Web of Science. Studies that assessed the association between dietary habits, lifestyle behaviors, comorbidities, and non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the quality of evidence across studies included in this review.
RESULTS
Out of 1,244 screened articles, 10 were finally selected for qualitative synthesis. In the general population, no consistent risk factors were identified except for Helicobacter pylori positivity, which was considered a risk factor in 2 studies, but the quality of evidence was considered very low because of the high risk of bias. In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), Spigelman stage IV at initial endoscopy was considered a consistent risk factor in 3 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
There are currently limited data regarding risk factors for non-ampullary duodenal adenocarcinoma, and no conclusive risk factors were identified in the general population. However, in patients with FAP, Spigelman stage IV was identified as a consistent risk factor. Further studies are needed to improve diagnosis and support effective clinical management of this malignancy.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Duodenal Neoplasms; Duodenum; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34000722
DOI: 10.1159/000516561 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jul 2024Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer...
Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC.
RESULTS
The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015).
CONCLUSION
This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.
Topics: Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Retrospective Studies; Ampulla of Vater; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms; Male; Female; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Adenocarcinoma; Lymph Node Excision; Cholangiocarcinoma; Aged; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Follow-Up Studies; Lymph Nodes; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
PubMed: 38602578
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15213-z -
Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) Oct 2019Objective Risks of bleeding and pancreatitis after mucosal resection using the purecut/autocut and blendcut/endocut modes for endoscopic papillectomy have not been fully...
Objective Risks of bleeding and pancreatitis after mucosal resection using the purecut/autocut and blendcut/endocut modes for endoscopic papillectomy have not been fully clarified. Thus, a systematic review on electrosurgical cutting modes for endoscopic papillectomy was conducted focusing on the types and incidence of adverse events. Methods We searched the PubMed and Cochrane library for cases of endoscopic papillectomy recorded as of April 2017. Studies reporting the methods of electrically excising a tumor in the duodenal papilla and the number of adverse events were extracted. Studies were collected and examined separately based on the electrosurgical cutting mode, and the incidence rate for each adverse event was summarized. Results A total of 159 relevant articles were found; among them, 20 studies were included and 139 excluded. Five studies analyzed endoscopic papillectomy with the purecut/autocut mode and 16 with the blendcut/endocut mode. Only one study investigated both modes (purecut and endocut). With the purecut/autocut mode, the incidence of bleeding was 2.8-50%, and that of pancreatitis was 0-50% (mean: 12.8%). With the blendcut/endocut mode, the incidence of bleeding was 0-42.3%, and that of pancreatitis was 0%-17.9% (mean: 9.5%). Conclusion Both methods had high adverse event rates for endoscopic papillectomy. Thus, a standard method of endoscopic papillectomy, including the electrosurgical cutting mode, needs to be established.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Electrosurgery; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31243201
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.2720-19 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Jan 2023The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis.
RESULTS
There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Pain, Postoperative; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Laparoscopy; Duodenum; Postoperative Complications; Length of Stay
PubMed: 36252181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003799