预防性关闭结肠内镜下粘膜下夹层改善预后吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Liang Dong, Weihua Zhu, Xiaolei Zhang, Xiao Xie
{"title":"预防性关闭结肠内镜下粘膜下夹层改善预后吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Liang Dong, Weihua Zhu, Xiaolei Zhang, Xiao Xie","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have described prophylactic closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions for improving postoperative outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of prophylactic closure after ESD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science by 2 reviewers independently for studies published up to July 9, 2023. All types of comparative studies were eligible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies compared 939 patients undergoing prophylactic closure with 1074 controls. Three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational. Pooled data from all included studies showed that prophylactic closure resulted in reduced incidence of delayed bleeding after ESD [odds ratio (OR): 0.30; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.72; I2 =0%]. These results were significant only for observational studies but not for RCTs. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of delayed perforation (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.70; I2 =0%) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.41, 3.19; I2 =63%) between closure and nonclosure groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Observational data suggest that prophylactic closure of colorectal mucosal defects after ESD may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding. However, the results are not concurred by RCTs. Furthermore, there seems to be no impact of prophylactic closure on the risk of delayed perforation and PECS.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"94-100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Prophylactic Closure Improve Outcomes After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Liang Dong, Weihua Zhu, Xiaolei Zhang, Xiao Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have described prophylactic closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions for improving postoperative outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of prophylactic closure after ESD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science by 2 reviewers independently for studies published up to July 9, 2023. All types of comparative studies were eligible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies compared 939 patients undergoing prophylactic closure with 1074 controls. Three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational. Pooled data from all included studies showed that prophylactic closure resulted in reduced incidence of delayed bleeding after ESD [odds ratio (OR): 0.30; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.72; I2 =0%]. These results were significant only for observational studies but not for RCTs. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of delayed perforation (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.70; I2 =0%) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.41, 3.19; I2 =63%) between closure and nonclosure groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Observational data suggest that prophylactic closure of colorectal mucosal defects after ESD may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding. However, the results are not concurred by RCTs. Furthermore, there seems to be no impact of prophylactic closure on the risk of delayed perforation and PECS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"94-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001248\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001248","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一些研究描述了内镜下粘膜下剥离(ESD)对结肠直肠病变进行预防性关闭以改善术后预后。我们回顾了ESD后预防性关闭影响的证据。方法:由2位独立审稿人在PubMed、Embase、CENTRAL和Web of Science上检索截至2023年7月9日发表的研究。所有类型的比较研究都是合格的。结果:10项研究比较了939例接受预防性结扎的患者和1074例对照组。其中3项为随机对照试验(rct),其余为观察性试验。所有纳入研究的汇总数据显示,预防性闭合可降低ESD后迟发性出血的发生率[优势比(OR): 0.30;95% ci: 0.15, 0.72;I2 = 0%)。这些结果仅对观察性研究有意义,而对随机对照试验没有意义。荟萃分析显示,延迟穿孔的风险无显著差异(OR: 0.55;95% ci: 0.18, 1.70;I2=0%)或esd后凝血综合征(PECS) (or: 1.15;95% ci: 0.41, 3.19;I2=63%)。结论:观察数据提示,ESD术后预防性闭合结直肠粘膜缺损可降低迟发性出血的风险。然而,随机对照试验的结果并不一致。此外,预防性关闭似乎对延迟穿孔和PECS的风险没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Prophylactic Closure Improve Outcomes After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Several studies have described prophylactic closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions for improving postoperative outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of prophylactic closure after ESD.

Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science by 2 reviewers independently for studies published up to July 9, 2023. All types of comparative studies were eligible.

Results: Ten studies compared 939 patients undergoing prophylactic closure with 1074 controls. Three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational. Pooled data from all included studies showed that prophylactic closure resulted in reduced incidence of delayed bleeding after ESD [odds ratio (OR): 0.30; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.72; I2 =0%]. These results were significant only for observational studies but not for RCTs. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of delayed perforation (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.70; I2 =0%) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.41, 3.19; I2 =63%) between closure and nonclosure groups.

Conclusions: Observational data suggest that prophylactic closure of colorectal mucosal defects after ESD may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding. However, the results are not concurred by RCTs. Furthermore, there seems to be no impact of prophylactic closure on the risk of delayed perforation and PECS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
×
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