Performance and safety of percutaneous cholangioscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-18 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0869
Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Kirill Basiliya, Antonio Facciorusso, Daryl Ramai, Christian Gerges, Georgios Tziatzios, Simon Phillpotts, George J Webster
{"title":"Performance and safety of percutaneous cholangioscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Kirill Basiliya, Antonio Facciorusso, Daryl Ramai, Christian Gerges, Georgios Tziatzios, Simon Phillpotts, George J Webster","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous cholangioscopy (PerC) offers an alternative for patients with an inaccessible biliary tree. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of this technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search in Medline, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed for studies assessing PerC up to October 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as successful stone identification or stricture workup. Secondary outcomes included therapeutic success (stone extraction, stenting) and complication rate. A subgroup analysis compared previous-generation and modern cholangioscopes. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model and the results were reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies (682 patients) were eligible for analysis. The rate of diagnostic success was 98.7% (95%CI 97.6-99.8%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=31.19%) and therapeutic success was 88.6% (95%CI 82.8-94.3%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=74.92%). Adverse events were recorded in 17.1% (95%CI 10.7-23.5%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=77.56%), of which 15.9% (95%CI 9.8-21.9%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=75.98%) were minor and 0.6% (95%CI 0.1-1.2%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=0%) major. The Spyglass system showed null heterogeneity for all outcomes; compared with older-generation endoscopes it offered comparable diagnostic success, but yielded significantly superior therapeutic success (96.1%, 95%CI 90-100%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=0% vs. 86.4%, 95%CI 79.2-93.6%; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=81.41%; P=0.02].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PerC, especially using currently available cholangioscopes, is associated with high diagnostic and therapeutic success.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"37 2","pages":"225-234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10927623/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous cholangioscopy (PerC) offers an alternative for patients with an inaccessible biliary tree. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of this technique.

Methods: A search in Medline, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed for studies assessing PerC up to October 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as successful stone identification or stricture workup. Secondary outcomes included therapeutic success (stone extraction, stenting) and complication rate. A subgroup analysis compared previous-generation and modern cholangioscopes. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model and the results were reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Fourteen studies (682 patients) were eligible for analysis. The rate of diagnostic success was 98.7% (95%CI 97.6-99.8%; I2=31.19%) and therapeutic success was 88.6% (95%CI 82.8-94.3%; I2=74.92%). Adverse events were recorded in 17.1% (95%CI 10.7-23.5%; I2=77.56%), of which 15.9% (95%CI 9.8-21.9%; I2=75.98%) were minor and 0.6% (95%CI 0.1-1.2%; I2=0%) major. The Spyglass system showed null heterogeneity for all outcomes; compared with older-generation endoscopes it offered comparable diagnostic success, but yielded significantly superior therapeutic success (96.1%, 95%CI 90-100%; I2=0% vs. 86.4%, 95%CI 79.2-93.6%; I2=81.41%; P=0.02].

Conclusion: PerC, especially using currently available cholangioscopes, is associated with high diagnostic and therapeutic success.

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
经皮胆道镜检查的性能和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:经皮胆道镜(Percutaneous cholangioscopy,PerC)为胆道树无法进入的患者提供了另一种选择。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估该技术的性能:在 Medline、Cochrane 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 数据库中搜索了截至 2022 年 10 月的 PerC 评估研究。主要结果是诊断成功,即成功识别结石或狭窄。次要结果包括治疗成功率(结石取出、支架植入)和并发症发生率。一项亚组分析比较了上一代胆道镜和现代胆道镜。我们使用随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析,结果以百分比和 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的形式报告:14项研究(682名患者)符合分析条件。诊断成功率为 98.7% (95%CI 97.6-99.8%; I2=31.19%),治疗成功率为 88.6% (95%CI 82.8-94.3%; I2=74.92%)。17.1%(95%CI 10.7-23.5%;I2=77.56%)的患者出现不良反应,其中15.9%(95%CI 9.8-21.9%;I2=75.98%)为轻微不良反应,0.6%(95%CI 0.1-1.2%;I2=0%)为严重不良反应。Spyglass系统的所有结果都显示出无效异质性;与老一代内窥镜相比,它的诊断成功率相当,但治疗成功率明显更高(96.1%,95%CI 90-100%;I2=0% vs. 86.4%,95%CI 79.2-93.6%;I2=81.41%;P=0.02]:PerC,尤其是使用目前可用的胆道镜,诊断和治疗成功率都很高。
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
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Authors' reply. Clinical features and outcomes of total pancreatic lipomatosis with chronic pancreatitis: a case series. Endoscopic management of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis strictures: meta-analysis and systematic literature review. Gastrointestinal cancer incidence after lung transplantation in sarcoidosis patients. Landscape of B lymphocytes and plasma cells in digestive tract carcinomas.
×
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