Comparative outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy for peripancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2019-05-14 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2631774519843400
Benjamin D Renelus, Daniel S Jamorabo, Hashroop K Gurm, Niel Dave, William M Briggs, Mukul Arya
{"title":"Comparative outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy for peripancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Benjamin D Renelus,&nbsp;Daniel S Jamorabo,&nbsp;Hashroop K Gurm,&nbsp;Niel Dave,&nbsp;William M Briggs,&nbsp;Mukul Arya","doi":"10.1177/2631774519843400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy has become the first-line treatment for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections. The aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy and safety of cystogastrostomy via a meta-analysis of the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic search of PubMed and Medline databases for studies published from January 2005 to May 2018. We included randomized controlled trials along with retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy stent placement for peripancreatic fluid collections. The primary outcome for our meta-analysis was complete peripancreatic fluid collection resolution on imaging. Our secondary outcomes included comparative efficacy and safety of the procedure for pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis using metal and plastic stents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen articles involving 1708 patients met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Based upon the random effects model, the pooled technical success rate of cystogastrostomy was 88% (95% confidence interval = 83-92 with <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 85%). There was no difference in the technical success rate between pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (91% and 86%, respectively <i>p</i> = nonsignificant). The adverse event rates for metal and plastic stents were equivalent (14% and 18%, respectively, <i>p</i> = nonsignificant).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy stents are effective in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis. We found no difference in technical success or adverse event rates of drainage based on peripancreatic fluid collection type or stent used.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"12 ","pages":"2631774519843400"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2631774519843400","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2631774519843400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy has become the first-line treatment for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections. The aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy and safety of cystogastrostomy via a meta-analysis of the literature.

Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed and Medline databases for studies published from January 2005 to May 2018. We included randomized controlled trials along with retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy stent placement for peripancreatic fluid collections. The primary outcome for our meta-analysis was complete peripancreatic fluid collection resolution on imaging. Our secondary outcomes included comparative efficacy and safety of the procedure for pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis using metal and plastic stents.

Results: Seventeen articles involving 1708 patients met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Based upon the random effects model, the pooled technical success rate of cystogastrostomy was 88% (95% confidence interval = 83-92 with I 2 = 85%). There was no difference in the technical success rate between pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (91% and 86%, respectively p = nonsignificant). The adverse event rates for metal and plastic stents were equivalent (14% and 18%, respectively, p = nonsignificant).

Conclusion: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy stents are effective in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis. We found no difference in technical success or adverse event rates of drainage based on peripancreatic fluid collection type or stent used.

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
超声内镜引导下膀胱胃造口术治疗胰周积液的比较结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:超声内镜引导下的囊胃造口术已成为治疗症状性胰周积液的一线治疗方法。本研究的目的是通过文献荟萃分析来分析胆囊胃造口术的疗效和安全性。方法:我们对2005年1月至2018年5月发表的PubMed和Medline数据库进行了系统检索。我们纳入了随机对照试验以及回顾性和前瞻性观察性研究,这些研究报告了内镜下超声引导下的囊胃造口支架放置用于胰周积液。我们荟萃分析的主要结果是胰腺周围液体收集成像的完全分辨率。我们的次要结果包括使用金属和塑料支架治疗假性囊肿和壁闭塞性胰腺坏死的比较疗效和安全性。结果:17篇涉及1708例患者的文章符合meta分析的纳入标准。基于随机效应模型,综合技术成功率为88%(95%置信区间= 83-92,i2 = 85%)。胰腺假性囊肿和壁闭塞性胰腺坏死的技术成功率无差异(分别为91%和86%,p =无统计学意义)。金属支架和塑料支架的不良事件发生率相等(分别为14%和18%,p =无统计学意义)。结论:超声内镜引导下囊胃造口支架治疗胰腺假性囊肿和壁闭塞性胰腺坏死是一种有效的方法。我们发现基于胰周液收集类型或所使用的支架,引流的技术成功率和不良事件发生率没有差异。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement of lumen-apposing metal stent for transgastric drainage of loculated malignant ascites. Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided simple puncture-aspiration (non-stenting) in the management of abdominal collections. Causes of intraprocedural discomfort in colonoscopy: a review and practical tips. Retrograde colon imaging through colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing helps to confirm the cause of difficult colonoscopy: a case report. Total mesorectal excision after rectal-sparing approach in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment: a high volume center experience.
×
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