Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000526644
Sara Oliveira de Brito, Diogo Libânio, Cláudia Martins Marques Pinto, João Pedro Pinho Osório de Araújo Teixeira, João Paulo Meireles de Araújo Teixeira
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Sara Oliveira de Brito,&nbsp;Diogo Libânio,&nbsp;Cláudia Martins Marques Pinto,&nbsp;João Pedro Pinho Osório de Araújo Teixeira,&nbsp;João Paulo Meireles de Araújo Teixeira","doi":"10.1159/000526644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) combines advantages of endoscopy and laparoscopy in order to resect upper gastrointestinal lesions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LECS in patients with EGJ (esophagogastric junction), gastric and duodenal lesions, as well as to compare LECS with pure endoscopic and pure laparoscopic procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched. Efficacy (R0, recurrence) and safety (conversion rate, procedure and hospitalization time, adverse events, mortality) outcomes were extracted and pooled (odds ratio or mean difference) using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and heterogeneity by Cochran's Q test and I<sup>2</sup> . Subgroup analysis according to location was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis included 24 studies/1,336 patients (all retrospective cohorts). No significant differences were found between LECS and preexisting techniques (endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/laparoscopy) regarding any outcomes. However, there was a trend to shorter hospitalization time, longer procedure duration, and fewer adverse events in LECS versus Laparoscopy and ESD. R0 tended to be higher in the LECS group. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in gastric versus EGJ lesions (mean 7.3 vs. 13.7 days, 95% CI: 6.6-7.9 vs. 8.9-19.3). There were no significant differences in conversion rate, adverse events, or mean procedural time according to location. There was a trend to higher conversion rate and longer procedure durations in EGJ and higher rate of adverse events in duodenal lesions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LECS is a valid, safe, and effective treatment option in patients with EGJ, gastric, and duodenal lesions, although existing studies are retrospective and prone to selection bias. Prospective studies are needed to assess if LECS is superior to established techniques.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>LECS is safe and effective in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal lesions, but there is no evidence of superiority over established techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":51838,"journal":{"name":"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":"30 1","pages":"4-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/22/2c/pjg-0030-0004.PMC9891153.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000526644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) combines advantages of endoscopy and laparoscopy in order to resect upper gastrointestinal lesions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LECS in patients with EGJ (esophagogastric junction), gastric and duodenal lesions, as well as to compare LECS with pure endoscopic and pure laparoscopic procedures.

Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched. Efficacy (R0, recurrence) and safety (conversion rate, procedure and hospitalization time, adverse events, mortality) outcomes were extracted and pooled (odds ratio or mean difference) using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and heterogeneity by Cochran's Q test and I2 . Subgroup analysis according to location was performed.

Results: This meta-analysis included 24 studies/1,336 patients (all retrospective cohorts). No significant differences were found between LECS and preexisting techniques (endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/laparoscopy) regarding any outcomes. However, there was a trend to shorter hospitalization time, longer procedure duration, and fewer adverse events in LECS versus Laparoscopy and ESD. R0 tended to be higher in the LECS group. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in gastric versus EGJ lesions (mean 7.3 vs. 13.7 days, 95% CI: 6.6-7.9 vs. 8.9-19.3). There were no significant differences in conversion rate, adverse events, or mean procedural time according to location. There was a trend to higher conversion rate and longer procedure durations in EGJ and higher rate of adverse events in duodenal lesions.

Conclusion: LECS is a valid, safe, and effective treatment option in patients with EGJ, gastric, and duodenal lesions, although existing studies are retrospective and prone to selection bias. Prospective studies are needed to assess if LECS is superior to established techniques.

Key messages: LECS is safe and effective in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal lesions, but there is no evidence of superiority over established techniques.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜内镜手术治疗上消化道病变的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景与目的:腹腔镜与内窥镜联合手术(LECS)是一种结合内窥镜与腹腔镜优势的上消化道病变切除手术。我们的目的是评估LECS在食管胃交界、胃和十二指肠病变患者中的疗效和安全性,并将LECS与纯内镜和纯腹腔镜手术进行比较。方法:检索PubMed、Scopus、ISI Web of Knowledge。使用随机效应模型提取疗效(R0,复发率)和安全性(转换率,手术和住院时间,不良事件,死亡率)结果并汇总(优势比或平均差异)。采用Newcastle-Ottawa量表评估研究质量,采用Cochran’s Q检验和I2评估异质性。按部位进行亚组分析。结果:该荟萃分析包括24项研究/1,336例患者(均为回顾性队列)。在任何结果方面,LECS与先前的技术(内镜下粘膜剥离(ESD)/腹腔镜)之间没有显着差异。然而,与腹腔镜和ESD相比,LECS的住院时间更短,手术时间更长,不良事件更少。R0在LECS组有较高的趋势。胃和EGJ病变的住院时间明显短于前者(平均7.3天vs. 13.7天,95% CI: 6.6-7.9 vs. 8.9-19.3)。在转换率、不良事件、平均手术时间等方面均无显著差异。EGJ的转换率较高,手术时间较长,十二指肠病变的不良事件发生率较高。结论:对于EGJ、胃和十二指肠病变患者,LECS是一种有效、安全、有效的治疗选择,尽管现有的研究是回顾性的,容易出现选择偏倚。需要前瞻性研究来评估LECS是否优于现有技术。关键信息:LECS在治疗上消化道病变方面是安全有效的,但没有证据表明其优于现有技术。
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 去求助
来源期刊
GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology
GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
62
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: The ''GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology'' (formerly Jornal Português de Gastrenterologia), founded in 1994, is the official publication of Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia (Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology), Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (Portuguese Society of Digestive Endoscopy) and Associação Portuguesa para o Estudo do Fígado (Portuguese Association for the Study of the Liver). The journal publishes clinical and basic research articles on Gastroenterology, Digestive Endoscopy, Hepatology and related topics. Review articles, clinical case studies, images, letters to the editor and other articles such as recommendations or papers on gastroenterology clinical practice are also considered. Only articles written in English are accepted.
期刊最新文献
Deep Learning and Minimally Invasive Endoscopy: Panendoscopic Detection of Pleomorphic Lesions. Real-Time Gastric Juice Analysis to Rule Out the Presence of Autoimmune Gastritis: A Case-Control Study. Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Colonization or Infection Was Not Associated with Post-Liver Transplant Graft Failure: An Observational Cohort Study. Abdominal Hypoperfusion and Acute Kidney Injury in the Critically Ill Patient with Liver Cirrhosis: A Prospective Cohort Study. Navigating Challenges in a Case of Unusual Hepatic and Pulmonar Sarcoidosis: A Comprehensive Clinical Journey.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1