Rafael Krieger Martins, Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi, André Luis Fernandes, José Pinhata Otoch, Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon
{"title":"恶性胃出口梗阻的姑息治疗:内镜超声引导下胃肠造口术与外科手术和内镜支架术相比如何?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Rafael Krieger Martins, Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi, André Luis Fernandes, José Pinhata Otoch, Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon","doi":"10.1177/26317745221149626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The gold-standard procedure to address malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJJ). Two endoscopic alternatives have also been proposed: the endoscopic stenting (ES) and the endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-G). This study aimed to perform a thorough and strict meta-analysis to compare EUS-G with the SGJJ and ES in treating patients with MGOO.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Studies comparing EUS-G to endoscopic stenting or SGJJ for patients with MGOO were considered eligible. We conducted online searches in primary databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, and Central Cochrane) from inception through October 2021. The outcomes were technical and clinical success rates, serious adverse events (SAEs), reintervention due to obstruction, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to oral intake.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found similar technical success rates between ES and EUS-G but clinical success rates favored the latter. The comparison between EUS-G and SGJJ demonstrated better technical success rates in favor of the surgical approach but similar clinical success rates. EUS-G shortens the LOS by 2.8 days compared with ES and 5.8 days compared with SGJJ. Concerning reintervention due to obstruction, we found similar rates for EUS-G and SGJJ but considerably higher rates for ES compared with EUS-G. As to AEs, we demonstrated equivalent rates comparing EUS-G and SGJJ but significantly higher ones compared with ES.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite being novel and still under refinement, the EUS-G has good safety and efficacy profiles compared with SGJJ and ES.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"16 ","pages":"26317745221149626"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/42/8b/10.1177_26317745221149626.PMC9869232.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Palliative therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: how does the endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy compare with surgery and endoscopic stenting? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rafael Krieger Martins, Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi, André Luis Fernandes, José Pinhata Otoch, Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26317745221149626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The gold-standard procedure to address malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJJ). Two endoscopic alternatives have also been proposed: the endoscopic stenting (ES) and the endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-G). This study aimed to perform a thorough and strict meta-analysis to compare EUS-G with the SGJJ and ES in treating patients with MGOO.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Studies comparing EUS-G to endoscopic stenting or SGJJ for patients with MGOO were considered eligible. We conducted online searches in primary databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, and Central Cochrane) from inception through October 2021. The outcomes were technical and clinical success rates, serious adverse events (SAEs), reintervention due to obstruction, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to oral intake.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found similar technical success rates between ES and EUS-G but clinical success rates favored the latter. The comparison between EUS-G and SGJJ demonstrated better technical success rates in favor of the surgical approach but similar clinical success rates. EUS-G shortens the LOS by 2.8 days compared with ES and 5.8 days compared with SGJJ. Concerning reintervention due to obstruction, we found similar rates for EUS-G and SGJJ but considerably higher rates for ES compared with EUS-G. As to AEs, we demonstrated equivalent rates comparing EUS-G and SGJJ but significantly higher ones compared with ES.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite being novel and still under refinement, the EUS-G has good safety and efficacy profiles compared with SGJJ and ES.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"26317745221149626\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/42/8b/10.1177_26317745221149626.PMC9869232.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745221149626\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745221149626","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:解决恶性胃出口梗阻(MGOO)的金标准手术是外科胃空肠吻合术(SGJJ)。此外还提出了两种内镜替代方法:内镜下支架植入术(ES)和内镜下超声引导胃肠造口术(EUS-G)。本研究旨在进行全面、严格的荟萃分析,比较 EUS-G 与 SGJJ 和 ES 在治疗 MGOO 患者方面的效果:将 EUS-G 与内镜支架或 SGJJ 治疗 MGOO 患者进行比较的研究均符合条件。我们在主要数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、Lilacs 和 Central Cochrane)中进行了在线检索,检索时间从开始到 2021 年 10 月。研究结果包括技术和临床成功率、严重不良事件(SAE)、因梗阻而再次干预、住院时间(LOS)和口服时间:我们发现 ES 和 EUS-G 的技术成功率相似,但临床成功率更倾向于后者。EUS-G 和 SGJJ 的比较显示,手术方法的技术成功率更高,但临床成功率相似。EUS-G 与 ES 相比缩短了 2.8 天的 LOS,与 SGJJ 相比缩短了 5.8 天的 LOS。在因梗阻而再次介入方面,我们发现 EUS-G 和 SGJJ 的比率相似,但 ES 比 EUS-G 的比率要高得多。至于 AEs,我们发现 EUS-G 和 SGJJ 的发生率相当,但 ES 的发生率明显高于 EUS-G:结论:尽管 EUS-G 是一种新技术,而且仍在不断改进中,但与 SGJJ 和 ES 相比,它具有良好的安全性和有效性。
Palliative therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: how does the endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy compare with surgery and endoscopic stenting? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: The gold-standard procedure to address malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJJ). Two endoscopic alternatives have also been proposed: the endoscopic stenting (ES) and the endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-G). This study aimed to perform a thorough and strict meta-analysis to compare EUS-G with the SGJJ and ES in treating patients with MGOO.
Materials and methods: Studies comparing EUS-G to endoscopic stenting or SGJJ for patients with MGOO were considered eligible. We conducted online searches in primary databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, and Central Cochrane) from inception through October 2021. The outcomes were technical and clinical success rates, serious adverse events (SAEs), reintervention due to obstruction, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to oral intake.
Results: We found similar technical success rates between ES and EUS-G but clinical success rates favored the latter. The comparison between EUS-G and SGJJ demonstrated better technical success rates in favor of the surgical approach but similar clinical success rates. EUS-G shortens the LOS by 2.8 days compared with ES and 5.8 days compared with SGJJ. Concerning reintervention due to obstruction, we found similar rates for EUS-G and SGJJ but considerably higher rates for ES compared with EUS-G. As to AEs, we demonstrated equivalent rates comparing EUS-G and SGJJ but significantly higher ones compared with ES.
Conclusion: Despite being novel and still under refinement, the EUS-G has good safety and efficacy profiles compared with SGJJ and ES.