-
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 -
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 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 5 (MODY5), a rare disease, is very easy to be misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes. To get better understanding of the disease, we...
AIMS
Maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 5 (MODY5), a rare disease, is very easy to be misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes. To get better understanding of the disease, we analyzed the clinical characteristics and gene mutations of MODY5.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang were searched with the following search terms: "MODY5" OR "HNF1B maturity-onset diabetes of the young" OR "maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 5" OR "renal cysts and diabetes syndrome". Clinical characteristics and gene mutations of MODY5 were analyzed. The demography, clinical characteristics, and blood indicators of patients were described utilizing simple summary statistics. Variables were analyzed by t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and Fisher exact test. Spearman's correlation analysis was used for bi-variate analysis. All tests were two-sided, and a -value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26 for Windows (SPSS).
RESULTS
A total of 48 literatures were included in this study, including 61 eligible patients and 4 different mutations. Of the 39 patients with available body weight index, 15 (38.46%) were underweight, 21 (53.85%) were normal weight and 3 (7.69%) were overweight or obese. Of the 38 patients with available family history, 25 (65.79%) reported a family history of diabetes. Of the 34 patients with available age of diabetes diagnosis, the median age of diabetes diagnosis was 16.00 years old and 88.24% (30/34) of patients were under 25 years old when they were first diagnosed with diabetes. Renal cysts were presented in 72.41%, hypomagnesemia in 91.67%, and pancreatic dysplasia in 71.88% of the patients. Patients with hepatocyte nuclear factor 1B (HNF1B) deletion had lower serum magnesium, serum creatinine, and higher eGFR than patients with other gene mutations, and the difference was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The young onset of diabetes with low or normal BMI, renal cysts, hypomagnesemia, and pancreatic dysplasia should be recommended to genetic testing in order to differentiate MODY5 from other types of diabetes earlier.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Central Nervous System Diseases; Dental Enamel; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1-beta; Humans; Kidney Diseases, Cystic; Magnesium; Mutation
PubMed: 35846334
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.911526 -
Annals of Gastroenterology 2021The American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluating pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) with ≥2 high-risk features (HRF),...
BACKGROUND
The American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluating pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) with ≥2 high-risk features (HRF), whereas the American College of Gastroenterology recommends EUS for ≥1 HRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF for assessing the risk of advanced neoplasia (AN) and performing EUS in PCL.
METHODS
An electronic database search was performed for eligible studies. AN was defined as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or mucinous cystadenoma with high-grade dysplasia, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. HRF included cyst size ≥3 cm, solid component, and dilated pancreatic duct ≥5 mm. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF as an indication for EUS to detect AN in PCL.
RESULTS
Of 38 studies initially screened, 8 were included in the final analysis. Seven studies assessed the accuracy of ≥2 HRF and 4 studies assessed ≥1 HRF. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for detecting AN were 41.7% (95% confidence interval 19.5-67.8%), 90.8% (81.9-95.5%), 30.4% (19.4-44.2%) and 94.3% (89.6-97.0%) with ≥2HRFs, and 77.1% (66.1-85.3%), 72.7% (50.4-87.5%), 17.95% (10.3-29.4%), 98.1% (90.8-99.6%), respectively, with ≥1 HRF.
CONCLUSION
Performing EUS for PCL with ≥1 HRF could offer greater sensitivity in detecting AN compared to ≥2 HRF, with a similar negative predictive value.
PubMed: 34475747
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2021.0630 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jul 2022Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequently incidental findings. The prevalence of PCLs is increasing, mainly due to advancements in imaging techniques, but also... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequently incidental findings. The prevalence of PCLs is increasing, mainly due to advancements in imaging techniques, but also because of the aging of the population. PCLs comprise challenging clinical problems, as their manifestations vary from benign to malignant lesions. Therefore, the recognition of PCLs is achieved through a complex diagnostic and surveillance process, which in turn is usually long-term, invasive, and expensive. Despite the progress made in the identification of novel biomarkers in the cystic fluid that also support the differentiation of PCLs, their application in clinical practice is limited. We conducted a systematic review of the literature published in two databases, Pubmed and Embase, on biochemical biomarkers in PCLs that may be applied in the diagnostic algorithms of PCLs. Eleven studies on intracystic glucose, twenty studies on intracystic carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and eighteen studies on other biomarkers were identified. Low levels of intracystic glucose had high sensitivity and specificity in the differentiation between mucinous and non-mucinous cystic neoplasms. CEA and glucose are the most widely studied fluid biochemical markers in pancreatic cystic lesions. Glucose has better diagnostic accuracy than CEA. Other biochemical biomarkers require further research.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoembryonic Antigen; Diagnosis, Differential; Glucose; Humans; Pancreatic Cyst; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35893110
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58080994 -
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &... Dec 2021Mucinous cystic neoplasms and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms are the most common pancreatic tumors occurring in women of fertile age and in pregnant women. The aim of...
BACKGROUND
Mucinous cystic neoplasms and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms are the most common pancreatic tumors occurring in women of fertile age and in pregnant women. The aim of this study is to provide an updated literature review on this association and to present a fully laparoscopic resection of a pregnancy-associated pancreatic cystic neoplasm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Ovid, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar for searching. The syntax was (pancr*) AND (cyst*) AND (pregn*) AND (tumor). Only English-language articles describing pancreatic surgical resections were included.
RESULTS
Forty-seven case reports were included. The mean age of the patients was 29.6±5.3. Nine patients (20%) required emergency surgery, 4 (9%) due to cyst rupture, and 5 (11%) due to hemorrhage. Four patients (9%) suffered a miscarriage, and 2 (5%) opted for pregnancy termination; the rest of the women delivered a healthy newborn (86%, n=36). Thirty percent (n=14) of the resected neoplasms were malignant, and among mucinous cystic lesions, this raised to 45% (n=11). All patients diagnosed during the third trimester were resected postpartum, whereas 26/34 (76%) of patients diagnosed during the first 2 trimesters underwent surgery before delivery.
CONCLUSIONS
The most worrisome complications in pregnancy-associated pancreatic cysts are bleeding or rupture. Mucinous cystic neoplasm has a tendency to grow during pregnancy. A postpartum resection was generally preferred when the cystic neoplasm was diagnosed during the third trimester. This report is the first to describe a fully laparoscopic pancreatic resection.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Laparoscopy; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Cyst; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34882616
DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001023 -
BMC Gastroenterology Feb 2021Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the neck and body of the pancreas often manifesting as persistent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the neck and body of the pancreas often manifesting as persistent pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) or external pancreatic fistula (EPF). This systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis aimed to review the definitions, clinical presentation, intervention, and outcomes for DPDS.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched until February 2020 using the PRISMA framework. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the success rates of endoscopic and surgical interventions for the treatment of DPDS. Success of DPDS treatment was defined as long-term resolution of symptoms without recurrence of PFC, EPF, or pancreatic ascites.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included in the quantitative analysis comprising 1355 patients. Acute pancreatitis was the most common etiology (95.3%, 936/982), followed by chronic pancreatitis (3.1%, 30/982). DPDS commonly presented with PFC (83.2%, 948/1140) and EPF (13.4%, 153/1140). There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of DPDS in the literature. Weighted success rate of endoscopic transmural drainage (90.6%, 95%-CI 81.0-95.6%) was significantly higher than transpapillary drainage (58.5%, 95%-CI 36.7-77.4). Pairwise meta-analysis showed comparable success rates between endoscopic and surgical intervention, which were 82% (weighted 95%-CI 68.6-90.5) and 87.4% (95%-CI 81.2-91.8), respectively (P = 0.389).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic transmural drainage was superior to transpapillary drainage for the management of DPDS. Endoscopic and surgical interventions had comparable success rates. The significant variability in the definitions and treatment strategies for DPDS warrant standardisation for further research.
Topics: Acute Disease; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Humans; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Pseudocyst; Pancreatitis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33632128
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01663-2 -
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 -
Pancreas Jul 2021The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts (PPCs) compared with laparoscopic treatment. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts (PPCs) compared with laparoscopic treatment.
METHODS
The Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Chinese citation database, and WANFANG database were systematically searched to identify all comparative trials investigating endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for PPC. The main outcome measures included treatment success rate, adverse events, recurrence rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay.
RESULTS
Six studies with 301 participants were included. The results suggested that there was no difference in rates of treatment success (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-2.01; P = 0.79), adverse events (OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.38-1.70; P = 0.57), or recurrence (OR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.22-1.40; P = 0.21) between endoscopic and laparoscopic treatments. However, the endoscopic group exhibited reduced operation time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -67.11; 95% CI, -77.27 to -56.96; P < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -65.23; 95% CI, -103.38 to -27.08; P < 0.001), and hospital stay (WMD, -2.45; 95% CI, -4.74 to -0.16; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic treatment might be suitable for PPC patients.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Endoscopy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pancreatic Pseudocyst; Postoperative Complications; Recurrence; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 34347721
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001863