Should an Incidental Meckel Diverticulum Be Resected? A Systematic Review.

IF 2.5 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-05-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEG.S460053
Vipul D Yagnik, Pankaj Garg, Sushil Dawka
{"title":"Should an Incidental Meckel Diverticulum Be Resected? A Systematic Review.","authors":"Vipul D Yagnik, Pankaj Garg, Sushil Dawka","doi":"10.2147/CEG.S460053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Meckel Diverticulum [MD), a common congenital anomaly of the gastrointestinal tract, poses a dilemma when incidentally encountered during surgery. Despite historical descriptions and known complications of symptomatic MD, the decision to resect an incidental MD (IMD) lacks clear guidelines. This study aims to assess whether resecting IMDs is justified by synthesizing evidence from studies published between 2000 and 2023. Factors influencing this decision, such as demographic risks, surgical advancements and complications, are systematically examined.</p><p><strong>Methods and material: </strong>Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this review incorporates 42 eligible studies with data on outcomes of asymptomatic MD management. Studies, both favoring and opposing resection, were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Considering complications, malignancy potential, and operative safety, the risk-benefit analysis presents a nuanced picture. Some authors propose conditional resection based on specific criteria, emphasizing patient-specific factors. Of 2934 cases analyzed for short- and long-term complications, the morbidity rate was 5.69%. Of 571 cases where mortality data were available, all 5 fatalities were attributed to the primary disease rather than IMD resection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The sporadic, unpredictable presentation of IMD and the variability of both the primary disease and the patient make formulation of definitive guidelines challenging. The non-uniformity of complications reporting underscores the need for standardized categorization. While the balance of evidence leans towards resection of IMDs, this study acknowledges the individualized nature of this decision. Increased safety in surgery and anesthesia, along with better understanding and management of complications favor a judicious preference for resection, while taking into account patient characteristics and the primary disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":10208,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11088382/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG.S460053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Meckel Diverticulum [MD), a common congenital anomaly of the gastrointestinal tract, poses a dilemma when incidentally encountered during surgery. Despite historical descriptions and known complications of symptomatic MD, the decision to resect an incidental MD (IMD) lacks clear guidelines. This study aims to assess whether resecting IMDs is justified by synthesizing evidence from studies published between 2000 and 2023. Factors influencing this decision, such as demographic risks, surgical advancements and complications, are systematically examined.

Methods and material: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this review incorporates 42 eligible studies with data on outcomes of asymptomatic MD management. Studies, both favoring and opposing resection, were analyzed.

Results: Considering complications, malignancy potential, and operative safety, the risk-benefit analysis presents a nuanced picture. Some authors propose conditional resection based on specific criteria, emphasizing patient-specific factors. Of 2934 cases analyzed for short- and long-term complications, the morbidity rate was 5.69%. Of 571 cases where mortality data were available, all 5 fatalities were attributed to the primary disease rather than IMD resection.

Conclusion: The sporadic, unpredictable presentation of IMD and the variability of both the primary disease and the patient make formulation of definitive guidelines challenging. The non-uniformity of complications reporting underscores the need for standardized categorization. While the balance of evidence leans towards resection of IMDs, this study acknowledges the individualized nature of this decision. Increased safety in surgery and anesthesia, along with better understanding and management of complications favor a judicious preference for resection, while taking into account patient characteristics and the primary disease.

偶发梅克尔憩室应否切除?系统回顾。
背景:梅克尔憩室(MD)是一种常见的先天性胃肠道畸形,在手术中偶然发现时会让人进退两难。尽管历史上对无症状的梅克尔憩室(MD)有过描述并已知其并发症,但对是否切除偶发的梅克尔憩室(IMD)缺乏明确的指导原则。本研究旨在通过综合 2000 年至 2023 年间发表的研究证据,评估是否有理由切除偶发性多发性肠梗阻。系统研究了影响这一决定的因素,如人口统计学风险、手术进展和并发症:根据 PRISMA 2020 指南,本综述纳入了 42 项符合条件的研究,这些研究提供了有关无症状 MD 管理结果的数据。分析了赞成和反对切除的研究:考虑到并发症、恶性肿瘤的可能性和手术安全性,风险-效益分析呈现出一种微妙的情况。一些学者根据特定标准提出了有条件的切除术,强调了患者的特定因素。在 2934 例短期和长期并发症分析病例中,发病率为 5.69%。在有死亡数据的 571 例病例中,所有 5 例死亡均归因于原发疾病而非 IMD 切除术:结论:IMD 的表现零星、难以预测,而且原发疾病和患者的情况各不相同,因此制定明确的指南具有挑战性。并发症报告的不统一性凸显了标准化分类的必要性。虽然证据的天平倾向于切除 IMD,但本研究承认这一决定的个体化性质。手术和麻醉安全性的提高,以及对并发症的更好理解和处理,都有利于在考虑患者特征和原发疾病的情况下明智地选择切除术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信