-
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Mar 2016Variable success and adverse event rates have been reported for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) utilizing either extrahepatic or intrahepatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Variable success and adverse event rates have been reported for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) utilizing either extrahepatic or intrahepatic approach. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to compare the two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus from January 2001 through January 5, 2015, to identify studies reporting technical success and adverse events of EUS-BD. A sample size of more than 20 patients was a further criterion. Weighted pooled rate (WPR) for technical success and post-procedure complications was calculated for overall studies and predefined subgroups. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for technical success and adverse events for two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD for distal common bile duct (CBD) strictures.
RESULTS
The WPR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for technical success and post-procedure adverse events was 90% (86, 93%) and 17% (13, 22%), respectively, with considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 77%). For high-quality studies, the WPR for technical success was 94% (91, 96 %), I(2) = 0% and WPR for post-procedure adverse event was 16% (12, 19%), I(2) = 39%. In meta-regression model, distal CBD stricture and transpapillary drainage were associated with higher technical success and intrahepatic access route was associated with higher adverse event rate. There was no difference in technical success using either approach OR 1.27 (0.52, 3.13), I(2) = 0% or transluminal method OR 1.32 (0.51, 3.38), I(2) = 0%. However, the extrahepatic approach appeared significantly safer as compared to the intrahepatic approach OR 0.35 (0.19, 0.67), I(2) = 27%. Likewise, choledochoduodenostomy was found to have less adverse events as compared to hepaticogastrostomy, OR 0.40 (0.18, 0.87), I (2) = 0%.
CONCLUSION
In cases of failure of traditional ERC to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-BD appears to be an emerging therapeutic modality with a cumulative success rate of 90% and cumulative adverse events rate of 17%. Randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of the procedure along with the comparison to traditional modalities like percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.
Topics: Bile Ducts; Choledochostomy; Cholestasis; Common Bile Duct; Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Surgery, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 26518417
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-3933-0 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2022The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.
CONCLUSION
EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 35246738
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09137-6 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Sep 2017The role of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the role of PBD in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The role of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the role of PBD in the treatment of potentially resectable HCC.
METHODS
All studies reporting outcomes on patients with PBD vs without PBD were included. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1980 and 2016.
RESULTS
Initial search identified 667 articles. Only 9 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. No significant differences in mortality were observed between the two groups (RR = 0,935; 95% CI = 0,612 to 1429; p = 0,463). Overall morbidity was significantly higher in PBD group (RR = 1266; 95% CI = 1039 to 1543; p = 0,011). No significant differences in transfusion rate, hospital stay, anastomotic leaks, abdominal collections and operative time, were found. Wound infections were significantly higher in PBD group.
CONCLUSIONS
PBD seems to be associated with higher postoperative morbidity and increases the risk of wound infections. Further prospective studies are needed to better define the impact of PBD in outcomes after surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Blood Transfusion; Drainage; Humans; Klatskin Tumor; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 28477976
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.04.001 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Jun 2016EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure after failed ERCP. However, limited data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD are available.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure after failed ERCP. However, limited data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD are available. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to evaluate transduodenal (TD) and transgastric (TG) approaches.
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies published in the English language for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate the cumulative technical success rate (TSR), functional success rate (FSR), and adverse-event rate of EUS-BD and the pooled odds ratio of TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach when compared with the TG approach.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies with 1192 patients were included in this study, and the cumulative TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate were 94.71%, 91.66%, and 23.32%, respectively. The common adverse events associated with EUS-BD were bleeding (4.03%), bile leakage (4.03%), pneumoperitoneum (3.02%), stent migration (2.68%), cholangitis (2.43%), abdominal pain (1.51%), and peritonitis (1.26%). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD. Compared with the TG approach, the pooled odds ratio of the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach were 1.36 (95% CI, .66-2.81; P > .05), .84 (95% CI, .50-1.42; P > .05), and .61 (95% CI, .36-1.03; P > .05), respectively, which indicated no significant difference in the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Although it is associated with significant morbidity, EUS-BD is an effective alternative procedure for relieving biliary obstruction. There was no significant difference between the TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures; Cholangitis; Choledochostomy; Cholestasis; Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Odds Ratio; Peritonitis; Pneumoperitoneum; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Prosthesis Failure; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26542374
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.033 -
World Neurosurgery Oct 2022This study reviews the use of lumbar drains (LDs) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and compares the outcomes to those associated with external ventricular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study reviews the use of lumbar drains (LDs) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and compares the outcomes to those associated with external ventricular drains (EVDs) and controls.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the literature was performed. English language studies with a sample size of more than 10 patients were included. One-arm and 2-arm meta-analyses were designed to compare external drainage groups. Random-effects models, heterogeneity measures, and risk of bias were calculated.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 2-arm meta-analysis comparing the LD to no drainage after aSAH found a significant improvement in the postoperative modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (0-2) within 1 month of hospital discharge in the LD group (P = 0.003), a lower mortality rate (P = 0.03), fewer cases of clinical vasospasm (P = 0.007), and a lower incidence of ischemic stroke or delayed ischemic neurological deficits (P = 0.003). When the LD was compared to EVDs, a significant improvement in the postoperative mRS score (0-2) within 1 month of discharge was found in the LD group (P < 0.001). In the LD group, rebleeding occurred in 15 (3.4%) cases and meningitis occurred in 50 (4.7%) cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with patients without cerebrospinal fluid drainage, patients with the LD after aSAH had lower mortality rates, lower risk of clinical vasospasm, and lower risk of ischemic stroke, and they were more likely to have an mRS score of 0-2 within 1 month of discharge. Compared with patients with EVDs, patients with the LD were more likely to have an mRS score of 0-2 within 1 month of discharge.
Topics: Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak; Drainage; Humans; Ischemic Stroke; Lumbosacral Region; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
PubMed: 35868504
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.07.061 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.
METHODS
A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.
CONCLUSIONS
ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreas; Endoscopy; Stents; Drainage; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37243522
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2213898 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Apr 2023Intraoperative pyloric drainage in esophagectomy may reduce delayed gastric emptying (DGE) but is associated with risk of biliary reflux and other complications.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative pyloric drainage in esophagectomy may reduce delayed gastric emptying (DGE) but is associated with risk of biliary reflux and other complications. Existing evidence is heterogenous. Hence, this meta-analysis aims to compare outcomes of intraoperative pyloric drainage versus no intervention in patients undergoing esophagectomy.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane were searched from inception up to July 2022. Exclusion criteria were lack of objective evidence (e.g., symptoms of nausea or vomiting) of DGE. The primary outcome was incidence of DGE. Secondary outcomes were incidence of pulmonary complications, bile reflux, anastomotic leak, operative time, and mortality.
RESULTS
There were nine studies including 1164 patients (pyloric drainage n = 656, no intervention n = 508). Intraoperative pyloric drainage included pyloroplasty (n = 166 (25.3%)), pyloromyotomy (n = 214 (32.6%)), botulinum toxin injection (n = 168 (25.6%)), and pyloric dilatation (n = 108 (16.5%)). Pyloric drainage is associated with reduced DGE (odds ratio (OR): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.74, I = 50%). There was no significant difference in incidence of pulmonary complications (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51-1.08; I = 0%), biliary reflux (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.80-2.54, I = 0%), anastomotic leak (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.48-1.29; I = 0%), operative time (MD: + 22.16 min, 95% CI: - 13.27-57.59 min; I = 76%), and mortality (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.48-2.64, I = 0%) between the pyloric drainage and no intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Pyloric drainage in esophagectomy reduces DGE but has similar post-operative outcomes. Further prospective studies should be carried out to compare various pyloric drainage techniques and its use in esophagectomy, especially minimally-invasive esophagectomy.
Topics: Humans; Anastomotic Leak; Gastroparesis; Esophagectomy; Prospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Pylorus; Drainage; Gastric Emptying; Esophageal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36650418
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05573-w -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021Surgery is the clinically preferred treatment for high perianal abscesses. Incision and seton drainage improve the cure rate and reduce recurrence. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Surgery is the clinically preferred treatment for high perianal abscesses. Incision and seton drainage improve the cure rate and reduce recurrence. We aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical effect and safety of incision and seton drainage in the treatment of high perianal abscess.
METHODS
China Knowledge Network (CNKI), WanFang database, VIP database, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched and all relevant Chinese and English language documents until July 2021were retrieved. All records that described randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of incision and seton drainage for the treatment of high perianal abscess were eligible. Documents that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk Evaluation Standard, and Revman5.4 software was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included. The results of nine studies showed that the clinical cure rate of the incision-seton group was higher than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Seven studies showed that the wound healing time of the incision-seton group was shorter than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Four studies showed that the visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the incision-seton group was lower than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Five studies showed that the Wexner score of the incision-seton group was lower than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Six studies showed that the formation rate of anal fistula in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Six studies demonstrated that the recurrence rate of abscess in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Seven studies showed that the incidence of adverse events in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Five studies demonstrated that the length of stay in the incision-seton group was shorter than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05).
DISCUSSION
The choice of surgical methods in clinical research has always been controversial. The incision-seton method can effectively and safely treat high perianal abscess. However, the results of this meta-analysis still leave some gaps in the evidence. More large-sample, high-quality, and multi-center RCTs are needed.
Topics: Abscess; Anus Diseases; Drainage; Humans; Rectal Fistula; Recurrence
PubMed: 34628909
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2229 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2023Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.
Topics: Humans; Klatskin Tumor; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangitis; Pancreatitis; Drainage; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36681067
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100163 -
Surgical Infections Jun 2022Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Recently, percutaneous drainage (PD) has emerged as an alternative therapy in select patients. In this study, we compare mortality and complications in patients with SA treated with splenectomy versus PD. A systematic literature search of 13 databases and online search engines was conducted from 2019 to 2020. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model (BGLMM) was used to conduct a separate meta-analysis for both mortality and complications. We used the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate risk of bias in non-randomized studies, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Results were presented according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included 46 retrospective studies from 21 countries. For mortality rate, 27 studies compared splenectomy and PD whereas 10 used PD only and nine used splenectomy only. Data for major complications were available in 18 two-arm studies, seven single-arm studies with PD, and seven single-arm studies with splenectomy. Of a total of 589 patients, 288 were treated with splenectomy and 301 underwent PD. Mortality rate was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-17%) in patients undergoing splenectomy compared with 8% (95% CI, 4%-13%) with PD. Complication rates were 26% (95% CI, 16%-37%) in the splenectomy group compared with 10% (95% CI, 4%-17%) in the PD group. Percutaneous drainage s associated with a trend toward lower complications and mortality rates compared with splenectomy in the treatment of SA, however, these findings were not statistically significant. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, further prospective studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Abscess; Drainage; Humans; Intraabdominal Infections; Retrospective Studies; Splenectomy; Splenic Diseases
PubMed: 35612434
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2022.072