Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Overstitch, X-Tack, and Endoscopic Hand Suturing for Closure of Gastrointestinal Defects After Endoscopic Resection: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 6.7 1区医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY

Gastrointestinal endoscopy Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2025.03.002

Vishnu Charan Suresh Kumar, Sahib Singh, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Babu P Mohan, Ganesh Aswath, Hafiz Muzaffar Akbar Khan, Bishnu Sapkota, Sherif Andrawes, Sumant Inamdar, Douglas G Adler

{"title":"Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Overstitch, X-Tack, and Endoscopic Hand Suturing for Closure of Gastrointestinal Defects After Endoscopic Resection: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Vishnu Charan Suresh Kumar, Sahib Singh, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Babu P Mohan, Ganesh Aswath, Hafiz Muzaffar Akbar Khan, Bishnu Sapkota, Sherif Andrawes, Sumant Inamdar, Douglas G Adler","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2025.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and aims: Data comparing the efficacy and safety of Overstitch, X-Tack, and Endoscopic Hand Suturing (EHS) for closure of gastrointestinal defects after endoscopic resection is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data.Methods: Online databases were searched for studies evaluating different closure systems for gastrointestinal defects. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled proportions were calculated.Results: A total of 15 studies (4 for EHS, 7 for Overstitch and 5 for X-Tack) were included. The pooled outcomes for EHS were: technical success 98%, clinical success 96%, adverse events 2%, bleeding 3% and perforation 1%. The pooled outcomes for Overstitch were: technical success 93%, clinical success 93%, adverse events 6%, bleeding 3% and perforation 3%. The pooled outcomes with X-Tack were: technical success 95%, clinical success 94%, adverse events 3%, bleeding 2% and perforation 1%.Conclusions: All 3 closure methods showed comparable high technical and clinical success rates. EHS and X-tack had lower adverse event rates than Overstitch. Future direct comparison studies would be needed to corroborate our findings.","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.03.002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Data comparing the efficacy and safety of Overstitch, X-Tack, and Endoscopic Hand Suturing (EHS) for closure of gastrointestinal defects after endoscopic resection is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data.

Methods: Online databases were searched for studies evaluating different closure systems for gastrointestinal defects. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled proportions were calculated.

Results: A total of 15 studies (4 for EHS, 7 for Overstitch and 5 for X-Tack) were included. The pooled outcomes for EHS were: technical success 98%, clinical success 96%, adverse events 2%, bleeding 3% and perforation 1%. The pooled outcomes for Overstitch were: technical success 93%, clinical success 93%, adverse events 6%, bleeding 3% and perforation 3%. The pooled outcomes with X-Tack were: technical success 95%, clinical success 94%, adverse events 3%, bleeding 2% and perforation 1%.

Conclusions: All 3 closure methods showed comparable high technical and clinical success rates. EHS and X-tack had lower adverse event rates than Overstitch. Future direct comparison studies would be needed to corroborate our findings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Gastrointestinal endoscopy 医学-胃肠肝病学

CiteScore

10.30

自引率

7.80%

发文量

1441

审稿时长

38 days

期刊介绍： Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.