Comparison of Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy With Endoscopic Step-Up Approach After Endoscopic Drainage of Pancreatic Walled-Off Necrosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 4.7
Ryan Yuen, Brian Lam, Shannon Melissa Chan, Hon Chi Yip, Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh
{"title":"Comparison of Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy With Endoscopic Step-Up Approach After Endoscopic Drainage of Pancreatic Walled-Off Necrosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ryan Yuen, Brian Lam, Shannon Melissa Chan, Hon Chi Yip, Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh","doi":"10.1111/den.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) is a safe and effective option in the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WOPN). Whether DEN should be performed immediately after drainage (DEN) or as a step-up approach (SUA) is unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare SUA with DEN in the treatment of WOPN.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Electronic databases including EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on DEN and SUA using equivalent combinations of \"DEN,\" \"Endoscopic step-up approach,\" and \"Walled-off necrosis.\" Studies were included only if they reported all primary outcomes of interest: (1) clinical success, defined as resolution of clinical symptoms of WOPN at 6 months and (2) postprocedural adverse events. Secondary outcomes were technical success, number of additional DEN required and reintervention rate, defined as number of additional DEN and other interventions required per patient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 1290 patients from 15 studies were included. There were no significant differences in clinical success (SUA: 94%, 95% CI: [91%-96%]; DEN: 90%, 95% CI: [83%-94%]; p = 0.14), adverse events (SUA: 16%, 95% CI: [10%-24%]; DEN: 16%, 95% CI: [10%-24%]; p = 0.97), technical success (SUA: 99%, 95% CI: [98%-99%]; DEN: 98%, 95% CI: [95%-99%]; p = 0.07), reinterventions (SUA: 1.48, 95% CI: [0.80-2.17]; DEN: 0.99, 95% CI: [0.48-1.51]; p = 0.26), and number of additional DEN required per patient (SUA: 0.93, 95% CI: [0.45-1.39]; DEN: 1.24, 95% CI: [0.57-1.92]; p = 0.44).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SUA and DEN were comparable in clinical success, adverse events, technical success, reinterventions, and additional DEN required.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.70021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) is a safe and effective option in the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WOPN). Whether DEN should be performed immediately after drainage (DEN) or as a step-up approach (SUA) is unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare SUA with DEN in the treatment of WOPN.

Patients and methods: Electronic databases including EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on DEN and SUA using equivalent combinations of "DEN," "Endoscopic step-up approach," and "Walled-off necrosis." Studies were included only if they reported all primary outcomes of interest: (1) clinical success, defined as resolution of clinical symptoms of WOPN at 6 months and (2) postprocedural adverse events. Secondary outcomes were technical success, number of additional DEN required and reintervention rate, defined as number of additional DEN and other interventions required per patient.

Results: In this study, 1290 patients from 15 studies were included. There were no significant differences in clinical success (SUA: 94%, 95% CI: [91%-96%]; DEN: 90%, 95% CI: [83%-94%]; p = 0.14), adverse events (SUA: 16%, 95% CI: [10%-24%]; DEN: 16%, 95% CI: [10%-24%]; p = 0.97), technical success (SUA: 99%, 95% CI: [98%-99%]; DEN: 98%, 95% CI: [95%-99%]; p = 0.07), reinterventions (SUA: 1.48, 95% CI: [0.80-2.17]; DEN: 0.99, 95% CI: [0.48-1.51]; p = 0.26), and number of additional DEN required per patient (SUA: 0.93, 95% CI: [0.45-1.39]; DEN: 1.24, 95% CI: [0.57-1.92]; p = 0.44).

Conclusions: SUA and DEN were comparable in clinical success, adverse events, technical success, reinterventions, and additional DEN required.

内镜下胰腺壁脱性坏死引流后直接内镜下坏死切除术与内镜下升级入路的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景与研究目的:直接内镜下坏死切除术(DEN)是治疗胰腺壁闭塞性坏死(WOPN)安全有效的选择。目前尚不清楚DEN是否应在引流后立即进行(DEN)或作为逐步入路(SUA)。本荟萃分析的目的是比较SUA与DEN治疗WOPN的疗效。患者和方法:检索电子数据库,包括EMBASE、PubMed和Cochrane图书馆,使用“DEN”、“内窥镜上升入路”和“封闭坏死”的等效组合搜索DEN和SUA的研究。只有报告了所有相关主要结局的研究才被纳入研究:(1)临床成功,定义为6个月WOPN临床症状的缓解;(2)术后不良事件。次要结局是技术成功、所需额外DEN次数和再干预率,再干预率定义为每位患者所需额外DEN次数和其他干预次数。结果:本研究纳入了来自15项研究的1290例患者。在临床成功(SUA: 94%, 95% CI: [91%-96%]; DEN: 90%, 95% CI: [83%-94%]; p = 0.14)、不良事件(SUA: 16%, 95% CI: [10%-24%]; DEN: 16%, 95% CI: [10%-24%]; p = 0.97)、技术成功(SUA: 99%, 95% CI: [98%-99%]; DEN: 98%, 95% CI: [95%-99%]; p = 0.07)、再干预(SUA: 1.48, 95% CI: [0.80-2.17]; DEN: 0.99, 95% CI: [0.48-1.51]; p = 0.26)和每位患者所需的额外DEN次数(SUA: 0.93, 95% CI:[0.45-1.39])无显著差异;Den: 1.24, 95% ci: [0.57-1.92];p = 0.44)。结论:SUA和DEN在临床成功、不良事件、技术成功、再干预和额外DEN需求方面具有可同性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信