EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
-
- Anand Kumar
- Division of Gastroenterology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, United States
-
- Saurabh Chandan
- Division of Gastroenterology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
-
- Babu P. Mohan
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
-
- Pradeep R. Atla
- Palmdale Regional Medical Center, Palmdale, California, United States
-
- Evin J. McCabe
- Division of Gastroenterology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, United States
-
- David H. Robbins
- Division of Gastroenterology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, United States
-
- Arvind J. Trindade
- Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, United States
-
- Petros C. Benias
- Division of Gastroenterology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, United States
この論文をさがす
説明
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p> Background and study aims Surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE) has been the mainstay treatment for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The emergence of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) presents a less invasive alternative for palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GE compared to SGE.</jats:p><jats:p> Methods Multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings up to April 2021 were searched to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to SGE. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AE) and recurrence, and pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of procedure time and post-procedure length of stay (LOS) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and Cochran Q statistics.</jats:p><jats:p> Results Seven studies including 625 patients (372 EUS-GE and 253 SGE) were included. EUS-GE had lower pooled odds of technical success compared with SGE (OR 0.19, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06–0.60, I 2 0 %). Among the technically successful cases, EUS-GE was superior in terms of clinical success (OR 4.73, 95 % CI 1.83–12.25, I 2 18 %), lower overall AE (OR 0.20, 95 % CI 0.10–0.37, I 2 39 %), and shorter procedure time (SMD –2.4, 95 % CI –4.1, –0.75, I 2 95 %) and post-procedure LOS (SMD –0.49, 95 % CI –0.94, –0.03, I 2 78%). Rates of severe AE (0.89, 95 % CI 0.11–7.36, I 2 67 %) and recurrence (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.18–1.38, I 2 49 %) were comparable. </jats:p><jats:p> Conclusions Our results suggest EUS-GE is a promising alternative to SGE due to its superior clinical success, overall safety, and efficiency. With further evolution EUS-GE could become the intervention of choice in GOO.</jats:p>
収録刊行物
-
- Endoscopy International Open
-
Endoscopy International Open 10 (04), E448-E458, 2022-04
Georg Thieme Verlag KG