-
Cancers Sep 2023Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenchymal-sparing approaches to pancreatectomy are technically challenging procedures but allow for preserving a normal pancreas and decreasing the rate of postoperative pancreatic insufficiency. The robotic platform is increasingly being used for these procedures. We sought to evaluate robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy and assess its complication profile and efficacy.
METHODS
This systematic review consisted of all studies on robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy (central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving partial pancreatic head resection, enucleation, and uncinate resection) published between January 2001 and December 2022 in PubMed and Embase.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies were included in this review ( = 788). Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy is being performed worldwide for benign or indolent pancreatic lesions. When compared to the open approach, robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomies led to a longer average operative time, shorter length of stay, and higher estimated intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative pancreatic fistula is common, but severe complications requiring intervention are exceedingly rare. Long-term complications such as endocrine and exocrine insufficiency are nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic parenchymal-sparing pancreatectomy appears to have a higher risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula but is rarely associated with severe or long-term complications. Careful patient selection is required to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.
PubMed: 37686648
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174369 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2023Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic benign, cystic, and neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasingly detected and recommended for surgical treatment. In multiorgan resection pancreatoduodenectomy or parenchyma-sparing, local extirpation is a challenge for decision-making regarding surgery-related early and late postoperative morbidity.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies reporting early surgery-related complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and duodenum-preserving total (DPPHRt) or partial (DPPHRp) pancreatic head resection for benign tumors. Thirty-four cohort studies comprising data from 1099 patients were analyzed. In total, 654 patients underwent DPPHR and 445 patients PD for benign tumors. This review and meta-analysis does not need ethical approval.
RESULTS
Comparing DPPHRt and PD, the need for blood transfusion (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p<0.01), re-intervention for serious surgery-related complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p<0.001), and re-operation for severe complications (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p=0.04) were significantly less frequent following DPPHRt. Pancreatic fistula B+C (19.0 to 15.3%, p=0.99) and biliary fistula (6.3 to 4.3%; p=0.33) were in the same range following PD and DPPHRt. In-hospital mortality after DPPHRt was one of 350 patients (0.28%) and after PD eight of 445 patients (1.79%) (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10-1.09, p=0.07). Following DPPHRp, there was no mortality among the 192 patients.
CONCLUSION
DPPHR for benign pancreatic tumors is associated with significantly fewer surgery-related, serious, and severe postoperative complications and lower in-hospital mortality compared to PD. Tailored use of DPPHRt or DPPHRp contributes to a reduction of surgery-related complications. DPPHR has the potential to replace PD for benign tumors and premalignant cystic and neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreatic head.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Duodenum; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Cyst
PubMed: 37670106
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05789-4 -
Digestive and Liver Disease : Official... Jun 2024Narrow-band imaging (NBI) is a readily accessible imaging technique that enhances mucosal visualisation, allowing for a more accurate assessment of duodenal villi.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Narrow-band imaging (NBI) is a readily accessible imaging technique that enhances mucosal visualisation, allowing for a more accurate assessment of duodenal villi. However, its role in the diagnosis of coeliac disease (CD) in clinical practice remains limited.
METHODS
We systematically searched several databases in June 2023 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of NBI for detecting duodenal villous atrophy (VA) in patients with suspected CD. We calculated the summary sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios using a bivariate random-effects model. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023428266).
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies with 540 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivity of NBI to detect VA was 93% (95% CI, 81% - 98%), and the summary specificity was 95% (95% CI, 92% - 98%). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.98 (95% CI, 96 - 99). The positive and negative predictive values of NBI were 94% (95% CI, 92% - 97%) and 92% (95% CI, 90% - 94%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
NBI is an accurate non-invasive tool for identifying and excluding duodenal VA in patients with suspected CD. Further studies using a validated classification are needed to determine the optimal role of NBI in the diagnostic algorithm for CD.
Topics: Celiac Disease; Humans; Narrow Band Imaging; Duodenum; Atrophy; Intestinal Mucosa; Sensitivity and Specificity; ROC Curve
PubMed: 37666682
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.08.053 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Jul 2024Current guidelines recommend multiple biopsies from the first (D1) and second (D2) part of duodenum to establish a diagnosis of celiac disease. In this meta-analysis we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Current guidelines recommend multiple biopsies from the first (D1) and second (D2) part of duodenum to establish a diagnosis of celiac disease. In this meta-analysis we aimed to find whether D1 biopsy can increase the diagnostic yield of adult celiac disease.
METHODS
Literature databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting diagnosis of celiac disease in the adult population using D1 biopsy. Meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 % and 95% prediction interval statistics. Measured outcomes were diagnostic yield with D1 and D2 biopsies and from 4 versus 2 biopsy samples.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled diagnostic rate of celiac disease from D1 biopsy was 77.4% [95% CI (64.7-86.5, I 2 94%)] and from D2 biopsy was 75.3% [60.8-85.7, I 2 96%]. The pooled rate of increase in diagnostic yield with D1 biopsy was 6.9% I [4.6-10.2, I 2 66%]. The pooled diagnosis rate with 2 biopsy samples were 77.3% [50-92, I 2 93%] and 86.4% I [58.4-96.7, I 2 87%] from D1 and D2 respectively, whereas that with 4 biopsy samples were 83.3% [49.8-96.2, I 2 76%] and 70.5% I [51-84.6, I 2 96%] from D1 and D2, respectively, the difference being non-significant.
CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrates that taking 4 biopsy samples does not incur any additional diagnostic value over taking 2 biopsy samples from each duodenum segment. Although biopsy from the D1 and D2 has similar diagnostic yield in the adult population, there was an overall increase in diagnostic yield with D1 biopsy, especially in those with a patchy disease distribution.
Topics: Celiac Disease; Humans; Biopsy; Duodenum; Adult
PubMed: 37646538
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001913 -
3 Biotech Sep 2023Gastroduodenal diseases have prevailed for a long time and more so due to dominance of gut bacteria in most of the cases. But habitation by other gut microbiota in... (Review)
Review
Gastroduodenal diseases have prevailed for a long time and more so due to dominance of gut bacteria in most of the cases. But habitation by other gut microbiota in gastroduodenal diseases and the relationship between and gastrointestinal microbiota in different gastroduodenal diseases is somewhat being unravelled in the current times. For this systematic review, we did a literature search of various gastroduodenal diseases and the effect on gut microbiota pertaining to it. A search of the online bibliographic databases PUBMED and PUBMED CENTRAL was carried out to identify articles published between 1977 and May 2022. The analysis of these selected studies highlighted the inhabitation of other gut microbiota such as , and many others. Interplay between these microbiota and have also been noted which suggested that gastroduodenal diseases and gut microbiota are intertwined by a symbiotic association regardless of the status. The relationship between the gut microbiota and many gastroduodenal diseases, such as gastritis, gastric cancer, lymphomas, and ulcers, demonstrates the dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in both the presence and absence of . The evolving ways for eliminating are provided along with inhibiting qualities of other species on . Most significant member of our gut system is which has been associated with numerous diseases like gastric cancer, gastritis, duodenal ulcer.
PubMed: 37588796
DOI: 10.1007/s13205-023-03734-5 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4 -
Digestive and Liver Disease : Official... Apr 2024The role of small-bowel (SB) cancer surveillance by capsule endoscopy (CE) in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients has been investigated in recent years, with contradicting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The role of small-bowel (SB) cancer surveillance by capsule endoscopy (CE) in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients has been investigated in recent years, with contradicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic yield (DY) of CE as a screening tool in asymptomatic LS patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for all studies reporting the results of SB cancer screening in patients with LS. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the DY of CE in this setting for consecutive screening rounds.
RESULTS
Five studies comprising 428 patients and CE 677 procedures were included for data extraction and statistical analysis. The estimated pooled DY for CE-identified pathological findings was 8% in the first screening round and 6% in the second. Limiting the analysis to histologically-confirmed pathological findings, the pooled DY of second-round screening dropped to 0%. The included studies showed a significantly different prevalence of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair (path_MMR) genes, which underlie different cumulative incidences of extracolonic cancers.
CONCLUSIONS
SB surveillance by CE with a 2-year interval in asymptomatic LS individuals does not appear to be an effective screening strategy. Confirmatory prospective studies in this context are needed, considering the different cumulative incidence of SB tumors according to underlying path_MMR defects.
Topics: Humans; Capsule Endoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis; Prospective Studies; Intestine, Small; Intestinal Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37563008
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.07.028 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Nov 2023Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower gastrointestinal (LGI) injury, although these relationships have not yet been fully elucidated.
METHODS
We searched all the relevant studies published until September 2022 that examined the risk of PPIs for LGI bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of LGI bleeding (small bowel (SB) or colorectal bleeding) between PPI users and non-users. A subgroup analysis of patients consuming aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 341,063 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The use of PPIs was associated with the risk of LGI bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] = 1.42 [1.16-1.73]; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 3.23 [1.56-6.71]). An association between PPI use and the risk of LGI bleeding was also identified in the subgroup of aspirin or NSAID users (OR [95% CI] = 1.64 [1.49-1.80]; HR [95% CI] = 6.55 [2.01-21.33]). In the bleeding site-specific analyses, the risk of SB bleeding was associated with PPI use (OR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.30-1.84]).
CONCLUSIONS
PPI use was associated with an increased risk of LGI bleeding, particularly SB bleeding. This association was particularly pronounced among aspirin and NSAID users. Inappropriate PPI prescriptions should be avoided in patients with LGI bleeding and a low risk of upper gastrointestinal disease.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Aspirin; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37553807
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12448 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Jul 2024There is an increasing interest in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and studies have shown its safety and efficacy for colonic polyps. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
There is an increasing interest in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and studies have shown its safety and efficacy for colonic polyps. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of CS-EMR for the removal of duodenal adenomas.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search of several databases, from inception through February 2023, for studies that addressed outcomes of CS-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas. We used the random-effects model for the statistical analysis. The weighted pooled rates were used to summarize the technical success, polyp recurrence, bleeding, and perforation events. Cochran Q test and I2 statistics adjudicated heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Six studies were included in the analysis. In all, 178 duodenal polyps were resected using CS-EMR. The pooled rates were 95.8% (95% CI 89.1-98.5%, I2 =21.5%) for technical success and 21.2% (95% CI 8.5-43.6%, I2 =78%) for polyp recurrence. With regards to CS-EMR safety, the pooled rates were 4.2% (95% CI 1.6-10.5%, I2 =12%) for immediate bleeding, 3.4% (95% CI 1.5-7.6%, I2 =0%) for delayed bleeding, 2.8% (95% CI 1.1-6.7%, I2 =0%) for perforation, and 2% (95% CL 0.5-7.5%, I2 =0%) for post-polypectomy syndrome. Rates were not significantly different for large adenomas. Three studies reported data on CS-EMR and conventional EMR. Compared with conventional EMR, CS-EMR had lower odds of delayed bleeding, OR 0.11 (CI 0.02-0.62, P value 0.012, I2 =0%).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that CS-EMR is a safe and effective strategy for the resection of nonampullary duodenal adenomas, with an acceptable recurrence rate. Data from larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate our findings.
Topics: Humans; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Duodenal Neoplasms; Intestinal Polyps; Adenoma; Treatment Outcome; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 37548451
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001898 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Dec 2023The current standard of practice is to use a duodenoscope for the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla (MDP). Recently, cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE), which uses a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The current standard of practice is to use a duodenoscope for the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla (MDP). Recently, cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE), which uses a transparent cap at the tip of a standard front-viewing endoscope, has emerged as an alternative.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in several databases from inception to January 2023 to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of CAE for the evaluation of the MDP.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 806 patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of technical success for CAE was 93.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.6-96.9; I = 84.6%). A subgroup analysis comparing CAE with a standard endoscope showed higher odds for the evaluation of the MDP with CAE (but not a duodenoscope, which was better than CAE) with an odds ratio of 57.294 (95% confidence interval, 17.767-184.755; I = 45.303%).
CONCLUSIONS
CAE offers a significant advantage with high rates of complete MDP evaluation compared with standard forward-viewing endoscopy. However, CAE is associated with lower rates of success when compared with side-viewing endoscopes.
Topics: Humans; Ampulla of Vater; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Endoscopes; Duodenoscopes
PubMed: 37544335
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.07.050