-
Revista Espanola de Enfermedades... Jun 2019the incidence of acute pancreatitis is rising across the world, thus further increasing the burden on healthcare services. Approximately 10% of patients with acute... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIM
the incidence of acute pancreatitis is rising across the world, thus further increasing the burden on healthcare services. Approximately 10% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), which is the leading cause of high mortality in the late phase. There is currently no consensus with regard to the use of endoscopic or minimally invasive surgery as the first-line therapy of choice for INP. However, more clinical research with regard to the superiority of an endoscopic approach has been recently published. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine which of the two treatments leads to a better prognosis.
METHODS
four databases (Medline, SINOMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies from 1980 to 2018, comparing endoscopic and minimally invasive surgery for INP.
RESULTS
two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven clinical cohort studies were included. After the analysis of data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the endoscopic approach in terms of pancreatic fistulas (OR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.30, p < 0.001) and the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -24.72, 95% CI = -33.87 to -15.57, p < 0.001). No marked differences were found in terms of mortality, multiple organ failure, intra-abdominal bleeding, enterocutaneous fistula, recurrence of pseudocysts, and length of stay (LOS) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), endocrine insufficiency and exocrine insufficiency.
CONCLUSION
compared with minimally invasive surgery, an endoscopic approach evidently improved short-term outcomes for infected necrotizing pancreatitis, including pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay. Furthermore, relevant multicenter RCTs are eager to validate these findings.
Topics: Endoscopy, Digestive System; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing
PubMed: 31021167
DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.5792/2018 -
Medicine Feb 2019This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare surgical and endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocyst (PP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare surgical and endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocyst (PP).
METHODS
The researchers did a search in Medline, EMBASE, Scielo/Lilacs, and Cochrane electronic databases for studies comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage of PP s in adult patients. Then, the extracted data were used to perform a meta-analysis. The outcomes were therapeutic success, drainage-related adverse events, general adverse events, recurrence rate, cost, and time of hospitalization.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference between treatment success rate (risk difference [RD] -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.20,0.01]; P = .07), drainage-related adverse events (RD -0.02; 95% CI [-0.04,0.08]; P = .48), general adverse events (RD -0.05; 95% CI [-0.12, 0.02]; P = .13) and recurrence (RD: 0.02; 95% CI [-0.04,0.07]; P = .58) between surgical and endoscopic treatment.Regarding time of hospitalization, the endoscopic group had better results (RD: -4.23; 95% CI [-5.18, -3.29]; P < .00001). When it comes to treatment cost, the endoscopic arm also had better outcomes (RD: -4.68; 95% CI [-5.43,-3.94]; P < .00001).
CONCLUSION
There is no significant difference between surgical and endoscopic treatment success rates, adverse events and recurrence for PP. However, time of hospitalization and treatment costs were lower in the endoscopic group.
Topics: Cost Savings; Drainage; Endoscopy; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatic Pseudocyst; Postoperative Complications; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30813129
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014255 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2019The use of fully covered metal stents (FCSEMS) and specifically designed lumen apposing metal stents for transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections has become... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of fully covered metal stents (FCSEMS) and specifically designed lumen apposing metal stents for transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections has become widespread. A systematic review published in 2015 did not support the routine use of metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. However, recent studies have shown conflicting data; therefore a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.
METHOD
We conducted a database search for original comparative studies between plastic and metal stents. The random effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Outcomes analysed were clinical success, adverse events and requirement of further intervention.
RESULTS
The search identified 936 studies, 7 studies with 681 (340 metal, 341 plastic) patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Clinical success was achieved in 93.8% versus 86.2% in the metal and plastic groups, respectively, RR 1.08 [95% CI 1.02-1.14]; p = 0.009. Adverse events were reduced for metal stents when compared with plastic (10.2% vs. 25.0%), RR 0.42 [95% CI 0.22-0.81]; p = 0.010. Metal stent usage reduced bleeding (2.8% vs. 7.9%), RR 0.37; [95% CI 0.18-0.75]; p = 0.006. Further intervention was required in 12.4% of patients in the metal stent group versus 26.7% for plastic stents, RR 0.54; [95% CI 0.22-1.29]; p = 0.165.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections is associated with improved clinical success, fewer adverse events and reduced bleeding compared to plastic stents.
Topics: Aged; Drainage; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreas; Pancreatic Juice; Plastics; Self Expandable Metallic Stents; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30191310
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6416-5 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Dec 2018Pancreatic injury is rare and optimal diagnosis and management is still debated. The aim of this study was to review the existing data and consensus on management of...
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic injury is rare and optimal diagnosis and management is still debated. The aim of this study was to review the existing data and consensus on management of pancreatic trauma.
METHODS
Systematic literature review until May 2018.
RESULTS
Pancreas injury is reported in 0.2-0.3% of all trauma patients. Severity is scored by the organ injury scale (OIS), with new scores including physiology needing validation. Diagnosis is difficult, clinical signs subtle, and imaging by ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) non-specific with <60% sensitivity for pancreatic duct injury. MRCP and ERCP have superior sensitivity (90-100%) for detecting ductal disruption. Early ERCP with stent is a feasible approach for initial management of all branch-duct and most main-duct injuries. Distal pancreatectomy (±splenectomy) may be required for a transected gland distal to the major vessels. Early peripancreatic fluid collections are common in ductal injuries and one-fifth may develop pseudocysts, of which two-thirds can be managed conservatively. Non-operative management has a high success rate (50-75%), even in high-grade injuries, but associated with morbidity. Mortality is related to associated injuries.
CONCLUSION
Pancreatic injuries are rare and can often be managed non-operatively, supported by percutaneous drainage and ductal stenting. Distal pancreatectomy is the most common operative procedure.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Clinical Decision-Making; Drainage; Female; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Male; Middle Aged; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Patient Selection; Risk Factors; Stents; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30005994
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.05.009 -
Translational Gastroenterology and... 2017The prevalence of pancreatic cystic echinococcosis (PCE) in the world is low ranging between 0.2% and 0.6%. The diagnosis of PCE is easy when it is associated to other... (Review)
Review
The prevalence of pancreatic cystic echinococcosis (PCE) in the world is low ranging between 0.2% and 0.6%. The diagnosis of PCE is easy when it is associated to other location such as liver, it became difficult when PCE was isolated simulating other diagnosis such as pseudocyst, a choledochal cyst, serous or mucinous cystadenoma and cystadenocarcinoma. This systematic review aimed to provide evidence-based answer to the following questions: (I) what are the efficient tools to affirm the diagnosis of isolated PCE and (II) what are the best therapeutic strategy for the PCE? An electronic search was performed by two authors (W Dougaz, I Bouasker). Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane collaboration were consulted. The keywords used were "cyst", "echinococcosis", "hydatid cyst" and "pancreas". All abstracts were analyzed followed by extraction of the full text by the same two authors (W Dougaz, I Bouasker), all divergences were resolved by discussion with C Dziri. Recommendations were based on Oxford's classification: (I) what are the efficient tools to affirm the diagnosis of PCE? -ultrasound remains the cornerstone of diagnosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reproduces the ultrasound defined features of CE better than computed tomography (CT). MRI with heavily T2-weighted series is preferable to CT. Pancreatic duct MRI should be promising to identify a fistula between PCE and pancreatic duct (level of evidence 3-recommendation B); (II) what are the best therapeutic strategy for the PCE? -surgery is the main treatment of PCE. Open approach is validated. The decision depends of the location of PCE: head body and/or tail of the pancreas (level of evidence 5-recommendation D): for the head of the pancreas, the tendency is toward conservative surgery. For body and/or tail of the pancreas, the tendency is toward radical surgery. Medical treatment (albendazole) should be prescribed 1 week before surgery and 2 months during postoperative period (level II evidence and grade C recommendation).
PubMed: 29354762
DOI: 10.21037/tgh.2017.11.13 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Pancreatic pseudocysts are walled-off peripancreatic fluid collections. There is considerable uncertainty about how pancreatic pseudocysts should be treated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic pseudocysts are walled-off peripancreatic fluid collections. There is considerable uncertainty about how pancreatic pseudocysts should be treated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015. We also searched the references of included trials and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We only considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with pancreatic pseudocysts, regardless of size, presence of symptoms, or aetiology. We placed no restrictions on blinding, language, or publication status of the trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on an available-case analysis for direct comparisons, using fixed-effect and random-effect models. We also conducted indirect comparisons (rather than network meta-analysis), since there were no outcomes for which direct and indirect evidence were available.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs, with 177 participants, in this review. After one participant was excluded, 176 participants were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage (88 participants), endoscopic drainage (44 participants), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage (24 participants), and open surgical drainage (20 participants). The comparisons included endoscopic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (two trials), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage alone (one trial), and open surgical drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (one trial). The participants were mostly symptomatic, with pancreatic pseudocysts resulting from acute and chronic pancreatitis of varied aetiology. The mean size of the pseudocysts ranged between 70 mm and 155 mm across studies. Although the trials appeared to include similar types of participants for all comparisons, we were unable to assess this statistically, since there were no direct and indirect results for any of the comparisons.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. One death occurred in the endoscopic drainage group (1/44; 2.3%), due to bleeding. There were no deaths in the other groups. The differences in the serious adverse events were imprecise. Short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL; four weeks to three months) was worse (MD -21.00; 95% CI -33.21 to -8.79; participants = 40; studies = 1; range: 0 to 100; higher score indicates better) and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 8040 USD; 95% CI 3020 to 13,060; participants = 40; studies = 1). There were fewer adverse events in the EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage alone (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.73; participants = 47; studies = 1), or the endoscopic drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61). Participants with EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage also had shorter hospital stays compared to EUS-guided drainage alone (MD -8.10 days; 95% CI -9.79 to -6.41; participants = 47; studies = 1), endoscopic drainage (indirect comparison: MD -7.10 days; 95% CI -9.38 to -4.82), or open surgical drainage group (indirect comparison: MD -12.30 days; 95% CI -14.48 to -10.12). The open surgical drainage group had longer hospital stays than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 4.20 days; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58; participants = 40; studies = 1); the endoscopic drainage group had longer hospital stays than the open drainage group (indirect comparison: -5.20 days; 95% CI -7.26 to -3.14). The need for additional invasive interventions was higher for the endoscopic drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (OR 11.13; 95% CI 2.85 to 43.44; participants = 89; studies = 2), and the open drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 23.69; 95% CI 1.40 to 400.71). The differences between groups were imprecise for the other comparisons that could be performed. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term HRQoL (three months to one year), long-term HRQoL (longer than one year), time-to-return to normal activities, or time-to-return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-quality evidence suggested that the differences in mortality and serious adverse events between treatments were imprecise. Low-quality evidence suggested that short-term HRQoL (four weeks to three months) was worse, and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage group. Low-quality or very low-quality evidence suggested that EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage led to fewer adverse events than EUS-guided or endoscopic drainage, and shorter hospital stays when compared to EUS-guided drainage, endoscopic drainage, or open surgical drainage, while EUS-guided drainage led to shorter hospital stays than open surgical drainage. Low-quality evidence suggested that there was a higher need for additional invasive procedures with endoscopic drainage than EUS-guided drainage, while it was lower in the open surgical drainage than in the endoscopic drainage group.Further RCTs are needed to compare EUS-guided drainage, with or without nasocystic drainage, in symptomatic patients with pancreatic pseudocysts that require treatment. Future trials should include patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, serious adverse events, HRQoL, hospital stay, return-to-normal activity, number of work days lost, and the need for additional procedures, for a minimum follow-up period of two to three years.
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Pancreatic Pseudocyst; Pancreatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 27075711
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011392.pub2 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Mar 2016To perform a systematic review comparing the outcomes of endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical pancreatic pseudocyst drainage.
AIM
To perform a systematic review comparing the outcomes of endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical pancreatic pseudocyst drainage.
METHODS
Comparative studies published between January 1980 and May 2014 were identified on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register and assessed for suitability of inclusion. The primary outcome was the treatment success rate. Secondary outcomes included were the recurrence rates, re-interventions, length of hospital stay, adverse events and mortalities.
RESULTS
Ten comparative studies were identified and 3 were randomized controlled trials. Four studies reported on the outcomes of percutaneous and surgical drainage. Based on a large-scale national study, surgical drainage appeared to reduce mortality and adverse events rate as compared to the percutaneous approach. Three studies reported on the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and surgical drainage. Clinical success and adverse events rates appeared to be comparable but the EUS approach reduced hospital stay, cost and improved quality of life. Three other studies compared EUS and esophagogastroduodenoscopy-guided drainage. Both approaches were feasible for pseudocyst drainage but the success rate of the EUS approach was better for non-bulging cyst and the approach conferred additional safety benefits.
CONCLUSION
In patients with unfavorable anatomy, surgical cystojejunostomy or percutaneous drainage could be considered. Large randomized studies with current definitions of pseudocysts and longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of the various modalities.
PubMed: 27014427
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i6.310 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jul 2014The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided... (Review)
Review
The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. These include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, EUS-guided necrosectomy, EUS-guided cholangiography and biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, EUS-guided drainage of abdominal and pelvic fluid collections, EUS-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation, EUS-guided vascular interventions, EUS-guided delivery of antitumoral agents and EUS-guided fiducial placement and brachytherapy. However these procedures are technically challenging and require expertise in both EUS and interventional endoscopy, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and gastrointestinal stenting. We undertook a systematic review to record the entire body of literature accumulated over the past 2 decades on EUS-guided interventions with the objective of performing a critical appraisal of published articles, based on the classification of studies according to levels of evidence, in order to assess the scientific progress made in this field.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Cholangiography; Digestive System Diseases; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Endosonography; Endovascular Procedures; Ethanol; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Injections; Nerve Block; Patient Selection; Predictive Value of Tests; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 25024600
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8424