-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Ultrasonography (performed by means of a four-quadrant, focused assessment of sonography for trauma (FAST)) is regarded as a key instrument for the initial assessment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ultrasonography (performed by means of a four-quadrant, focused assessment of sonography for trauma (FAST)) is regarded as a key instrument for the initial assessment of patients with suspected blunt abdominal and thoraco-abdominal trauma in the emergency department setting. FAST has a high specificity but low sensitivity in detecting and excluding visceral injuries. Proponents of FAST argue that ultrasound-based clinical pathways enhance the speed of primary trauma assessment, reduce the number of unnecessary multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scans, and enable quicker triage to surgical and non-surgical care. Given the proven accuracy, increasing availability of, and indication for, MDCT among patients with blunt abdominal and multiple injuries, we aimed to compile the best available evidence of the use of FAST-based assessment compared with other primary trauma assessment protocols.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of diagnostic algorithms using ultrasonography including in FAST examinations in the emergency department in relation to the early, late, and overall mortality of patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
The most recent search was run on 30th June 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. Trial authors were contacted for further information and individual patient data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were patients with blunt torso, abdominal, or multiple trauma undergoing diagnostic investigations for abdominal organ injury. The intervention was diagnostic algorithms comprising emergency ultrasonography (US). The control was diagnostic algorithms without US examinations (for example, primary computed tomography (CT) or diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL)). Outcomes were mortality, use of CT or invasive procedures (DPL, laparoscopy, laparotomy), and cost-effectiveness.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors (DS and CG) independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and weighted mean differences, each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated by fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Overall, trials were of poor to moderate methodological quality. Few trial authors responded to our written inquiries seeking to resolve controversial issues and to obtain individual patient data. Strong heterogeneity amongst the trials prompted discussion between the review authors as to whether the data should or should not be pooled; we decided in favour of a quantitative synthesis to provide a rough impression about the effect sizes achievable with US-based triage algorithms. We pooled mortality data from three trials involving 1254 patients; the RR in favour of the FAST arm was 1.00 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.00). FAST-based pathways reduced the number of CT scans (random-effects model RD -0.52, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.21), but the meaning of this result was unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The experimental evidence justifying FAST-based clinical pathways in diagnosing patients with suspected abdominal or multiple blunt trauma remains poor. Because of strong heterogeneity between the trial results, the quantitative information provided by this review may only be used in an exploratory fashion. It is unlikely that FAST will ever be investigated by means of a confirmatory, large-scale RCT in the future. Thus, this Cochrane Review may be regarded as a review which provides the best available evidence for clinical practice guidelines and management recommendations. It can only be concluded from the few head-to-head studies that negative US scans are likely to reduce the incidence of MDCT scans which, given the low sensitivity of FAST (or reliability of negative results), may adversely affect the diagnostic yield of the trauma survey. At best, US has no negative impact on mortality or morbidity. Assuming that major blunt abdominal or multiple trauma is associated with 15% mortality and a CT-based diagnostic work-up is considered the current standard of care, 874, 3495, or 21,838 patients are needed per intervention group to demonstrate non-inferiority of FAST to CT-based algorithms with non-inferiority margins of 5%, 2.5%, and 1%, power of 90%, and a type-I error alpha of 5%.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Algorithms; Emergencies; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonography; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 26368505
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004446.pub4 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Mar 2023Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL.
CONCLUSION
IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Lavage; Abdominal Abscess; Peritonitis; Surgical Wound Infection; Appendicitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36991507
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00496-6 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2023Staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer is recommended to assess the tumor's locoregional extension and exclude peritoneal disease. As there is no consensus on optimizing...
BACKGROUND
Staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer is recommended to assess the tumor's locoregional extension and exclude peritoneal disease. As there is no consensus on optimizing the procedure's diagnostic accuracy, we aimed to systematically review the literature on operative techniques, followed by peritoneal lavage fluid assessment in gastric cancer patients. Specifically, we sought to indicate the most common characteristics of the procedure and cytological evaluation.
METHODS
This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO database (CRD: 42022306746). On September 2022, a search was carried out using Embase, Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection.
RESULTS
The search identified 1632 studies on staging laparoscopy and 2190 studies on peritoneal fluid assessment. Some 212 studies were included. Open Hasson was the method of choice in accessing the peritoneal cavity in 65% of the studies, followed by establishing a pneumoperitoneum at 10-12 mmHg in 52% of reports. Most frequently, the patient was positioned supine (70%), while a 30° scope and three ports were used to assess the peritoneal cavity clockwise (72%, 77%, and 85%, respectively). Right and left upper abdomen quadrants were the predominant area of laparoscopic exploration (both 65%), followed by the primary tumor region (54%), liver and pelvis (both 30%), and small bowel and spleen (19% and 17%, respectively). Regions of peritoneal lavage and aspiration were limited to the pelvis (50%), followed by right and left upper abdomen quadrants (37.5% and 50%, respectively). No studies compared different methods of operative techniques or analysis of ascites/fluid.
CONCLUSIONS
This study indicates a high heterogeneity in the technique of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal fluid assessment in gastric cancer patients. Further research and initiatives to reach a consensus on the standardization of the procedure are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Stomach Neoplasms; Ascitic Fluid; Neoplasm Staging; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Lavage
PubMed: 37581636
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000632 -
Gastric Cancer : Official Journal of... Jan 2018Peritoneal cytology has been used as a part of the cancer staging of gastric cancer patients. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the value of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal cytology has been used as a part of the cancer staging of gastric cancer patients. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the value of peritoneal cytology as part of the staging of gastric cancer and survival prediction. The second aim was to establish if positive cytology may be modified by neoadjuvant therapy, to improve prognosis.
METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to January 2016. The logarithm of the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used as the primary summary statistic. Comparative studies were used, and the outcome measure was survival in three groups: (1) positive versus negative cytology at staging laparoscopy immediately preceding surgery; (2) effect of neoadjuvant therapy on cytology and survival; and (3) positive cytology in the absence of macroscopic peritoneal disease was compared with obvious macroscopic peritoneal disease.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis demonstrated that positive cytology was associated with significantly reduced overall survival (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.77-4.31; P < 0.0001). Interestingly, negative cytology following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57; P < 0.0001). The absence of macroscopic peritoneal disease with positive cytology was associated with significantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that patients with initial positive cytology may have a good prognosis following neoadjuvant treatment if the cytology results change to negative after treatment.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Peritoneal Lavage; Prognosis; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 28779261
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-017-0749-y -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Dec 2016Intraperitoneal free cancer cells in gastric adenocarcinoma are associated with a poor outcome. However, the true prognostic value of intraperitoneal free cancer cells... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Intraperitoneal free cancer cells in gastric adenocarcinoma are associated with a poor outcome. However, the true prognostic value of intraperitoneal free cancer cells is still unclear, leading to a lack of consensus in the management of gastric cancer. The aim of the present study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze intraperitoneal free cancer cells-positive patients with regard to tumor oncologic stage, recurrence, grade of cellular differentiation, and survival rates and to analyze the clinical significance of intraperitoneal free cancer cells with regard to prognosis. Databases were searched up to January 2016 for prognostic factors associated with intraperitoneal free cancer cells, including oncologic stage, depth of neoplasm invasion, lymph nodal spread, differentiation grade of the tumor, and recurrence and survival rates. A total of 100 studies were identified. Meta-analysis revealed a clear association between intraperitoneal free cancer cells and a poor prognosis. intraperitoneal free cancer cells -positive patients had higher rates of nodal spread (risk difference: 0.29; p<0.01), serosal invasion (risk difference: 0.43; p<0.01), recurrence (after 60 months of follow-up, risk difference: 0.44; p<0.01), and mortality (after 60 months of follow-up, risk difference: 0.34; p<0.01). Intraperitoneal free cancer cells are associated with a poor outcome in gastric cancer. This surrogate biomarker should be used to guide therapy both prior to and after surgery.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Gastric Lavage; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Peritoneal Cavity; Prognosis; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 28076519
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2016(12)10 -
International Journal of Surgery... Feb 2017Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) has been proposed as an alternative, less invasive technique in the treatment of acute perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (APSD). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) has been proposed as an alternative, less invasive technique in the treatment of acute perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (APSD). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of LPL versus surgical resection (SR) in terms of morbidity and mortality in the management of APSD.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LPL versus SR in the treatment of APSD. The end points included peri-operative mortality, severe adverse events, overall mortality, post-operative abscess, percutaneous reinterventions, reoperation, operative time, postoperative stay, and readmissions.
RESULTS
Three RCTs with a total of 372 patients, randomised to either LPL or SR were included. There was no significant difference in peri-operative mortality between LPL and SR (OR 1.356, 95% CI 0.365 to 5.032, p = 0.649), or serious adverse events (OR = 1.866, 95% CI = 0.680 to 5.120, p = 0.226). The LPL required significantly less time to complete than SR (WMD = -72.105, 95% CI = -88.335 to -55.876, p < 0.0001). The LPL group was associated with a significantly higher rate of postoperative abscess formation (OR = 4.121, 95% CI = 1.890 to 8.986, p = 0.0004) and subsequent percutaneous interventions (OR = 5.414, 95% CI 1.618 to 18.118, p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is a safe and quick alternative in the management of APSD. In comparison to SR, LPL results in higher rates of postoperative abscess formation requiring more percutaneous drainage interventions without any difference in perioperative mortality and serious morbidity.
Topics: Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Lavage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28089941
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.020 -
Oncotarget Nov 2015Despite continuously improving therapies, gastric cancer still shows poor survival in locally advanced stages with local recurrence rates of up to 50% and peritoneal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Despite continuously improving therapies, gastric cancer still shows poor survival in locally advanced stages with local recurrence rates of up to 50% and peritoneal recurrence rates of 17% after curative surgery. We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses to clarify whether positive intraperitoneal cytology (IPC) indicates a high risk of disease recurrence and poor overall survival in gastric cancer.
METHODS
Multiple databases were searched in December 2014 to identify studies on the prognostic significance of positive intraperitoneal cytology in gastric cancer, including: Medline, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Embase, CCMed and publisher databases. Hazard ratios (HR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted from the identified studies. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model on overall survival, disease-free survival and peritoneal recurrence free survival.
RESULTS
A total of 64 studies with a cumulative sample size of 12,883 patients were included. Cytology, quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or both were performed in 35; 21 and 8 studies, respectively. Meta analyses revealed free intraperitoneal tumor cells (FITC) to be associated with poor overall survival in univariate (HR 3.27; 95% CI 2.82 - 3.78]) and multivariate (HR 2.45; 95% CI 2.04 - 2.94) analysis and poor peritoneal recurrence free survival in univariate (4.15; 95% CI 3.10 - 5.57) and multivariate (3.09; 95% CI 2.02 - 4.71) analysis. Subgroup analysis showed this effect to be independent of the detection method, Western or Asian origin or the time of publication.
CONCLUSIONS
FITC oder positive peritoneal cytology is associated with poor survival and increased peritoneal recurrence in gastric cancer.
Topics: Animals; Histological Techniques; Humans; Peritoneum; Prognosis; Stomach Neoplasms; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26384352
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.5595 -
BJS Open Feb 2019The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of suction alone lavage for appendicitis was performed to determine the relative benefit of lavage. Primary outcomes were postoperative IAA and wound infection (WI). Inclusion criteria were human studies reporting a comparison of appendicectomy with or without peritoneal lavage.
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective. Only three were RCTs. Four studies included analysis only of the paediatric population. The rate of IAA was 1·0-19·5 per cent in patients receiving suction alone and 1·5-18·6 per cent in those having lavage. WI rates were 1·0-29·2 per cent for suction alone and 0·8-20·5 per cent for lavage. The pooled risk difference for IAA was 0·01 (95 per cent c.i. -0·03 to 0·06; = 0·50) and that for WI was 0·00 (-0·05 to 0·05; = 0·98). Analyses of both outcomes indicated a medium degree of heterogeneity between effect estimates with values of 71 per cent ( = 0·001) and 70 per cent ( = 0·010) for IAA and WI respectively.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence of benefit of lavage over suction for postoperative infective complications, and no individual study demonstrated a significant benefit in patients receiving lavage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Peritoneal Lavage; Postoperative Complications; Suction; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30734012
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50118 -
Medicine Jan 2015To this day, the treatment of generalized peritonitis secondary to diverticular perforation is still controversial. Recently, in patients with acute sigmoid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To this day, the treatment of generalized peritonitis secondary to diverticular perforation is still controversial. Recently, in patients with acute sigmoid diverticulitis, laparoscopic lavage and drainage has gained a wide interest as an alternative to resection. Based on this backdrop, we decided to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of peritoneal lavage in perforated diverticular disease.A bibliographic search was performed in PubMed for case series and comparative studies published between January 1992 and February 2014 describing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in patients with perforated diverticulitis.A total of 19 articles consisting of 10 cohort studies, 8 case series, and 1 controlled clinical trial met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. In total these studies analyzed data from 871 patients. The mean follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 96 months when reported. In 11 studies, the success rate of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, defined as patients alive without surgical treatment for a recurrent episode of diverticulitis, was 24.3%. In patients with Hinchey stage III diverticulitis, the incidence of laparotomy conversion was 1%, whereas in patients with stage IV it was 45%. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 2.9%. The 30-day postoperative reintervention rate was 4.9%, whereas 2% of patients required a percutaneous drainage. Readmission rate after the first hospitalization for recurrent diverticulitis was 6%. Most patients who were readmitted (69%) required redo surgery. A 2-stage laparoscopic intervention was performed in 18.3% of patients.Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage should be considered an effective and safe option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid diverticulitis with Hinchey stage III peritonitis; it can also be consider as a "bridge" surgical step combined with a delayed and elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in order to avoid a Hartmann procedure. This minimally invasive staged approach should be considered for patients without systemic toxicity and in centers experienced in minimally invasive surgery techniques. Further evidence is needed, and the ongoing RCTs will better define the role of the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage/drainage in the treatment of patients with complicated diverticulitis.
Topics: Colectomy; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis
PubMed: 25569649
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000334 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.
Topics: Humans; Necrosis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Peritoneal Lavage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Video-Assisted Surgery
PubMed: 27083933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011383.pub2