后经口内窥镜下肌切开术与不保留斜/悬吊纤维:一项荟萃分析。

Abdul-Rahman F Diab, Joseph A Sujka, Heena Patel, Saarangan Jegathesan, Alessandra Cruz Bou, Salvatore Docimo, Christopher G DuCoin
{"title":"后经口内窥镜下肌切开术与不保留斜/悬吊纤维:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Abdul-Rahman F Diab, Joseph A Sujka, Heena Patel, Saarangan Jegathesan, Alessandra Cruz Bou, Salvatore Docimo, Christopher G DuCoin","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Several studies have hypothesized that sparing the oblique/sling fibers during posterior peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may reduce the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and reflux esophagitis without compromising the established safety and efficacy of the procedure. This study compares perioperative, postoperative motility-related, and postoperative GERD-related outcomes between posterior oblique/sling fibers-sparing POEM (OFS-POEM) and conventional posterior POEM through a pairwise meta-analysis of comparative studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines to identify articles directly comparing posterior OFS-POEM with conventional posterior POEM. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes, including mean gastric myotomy length, mean operative time, and incidence of adverse events. Similarly, no significant differences were noted in postoperative motility-related outcomes, such as mean Eckardt score and mean integrated relaxation pressure. However, a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of symptomatic GERD was observed in favor of OFS-POEM, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10 (95% CI: 6-49). Interestingly, no significant differences were found in the incidence of objectively diagnosed postoperative GERD, such as the number of patients with DeMeester scores >14 or the incidence of reflux esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that OFS-POEM may reduce the incidence of symptomatic GERD following POEM, without affecting the incidence of GERD diagnosed by pH studies (DeMeester score >14) or by endoscopy (reflux esophagitis). Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further investigate the impact of OFS-POEM on GERD incidence as determined by pH studies and endoscopic findings. Given the limitations of this study, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Multicenter randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to reach more reliable conclusions. Furthermore, stratifying data according to the type and class of achalasia would provide valuable information on whether there are differences in outcomes among the various types and classes of achalasia.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Posterior Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy With Versus Without Sparing of the Oblique/Sling Fibers: A Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Abdul-Rahman F Diab, Joseph A Sujka, Heena Patel, Saarangan Jegathesan, Alessandra Cruz Bou, Salvatore Docimo, Christopher G DuCoin\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001353\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Several studies have hypothesized that sparing the oblique/sling fibers during posterior peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may reduce the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and reflux esophagitis without compromising the established safety and efficacy of the procedure. This study compares perioperative, postoperative motility-related, and postoperative GERD-related outcomes between posterior oblique/sling fibers-sparing POEM (OFS-POEM) and conventional posterior POEM through a pairwise meta-analysis of comparative studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines to identify articles directly comparing posterior OFS-POEM with conventional posterior POEM. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes, including mean gastric myotomy length, mean operative time, and incidence of adverse events. Similarly, no significant differences were noted in postoperative motility-related outcomes, such as mean Eckardt score and mean integrated relaxation pressure. However, a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of symptomatic GERD was observed in favor of OFS-POEM, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10 (95% CI: 6-49). Interestingly, no significant differences were found in the incidence of objectively diagnosed postoperative GERD, such as the number of patients with DeMeester scores >14 or the incidence of reflux esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that OFS-POEM may reduce the incidence of symptomatic GERD following POEM, without affecting the incidence of GERD diagnosed by pH studies (DeMeester score >14) or by endoscopy (reflux esophagitis). Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further investigate the impact of OFS-POEM on GERD incidence as determined by pH studies and endoscopic findings. Given the limitations of this study, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Multicenter randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to reach more reliable conclusions. Furthermore, stratifying data according to the type and class of achalasia would provide valuable information on whether there are differences in outcomes among the various types and classes of achalasia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"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.0000000000001353\",\"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.0000000000001353","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

背景和目的:一些研究假设,在经口后内镜下肌切开术(POEM)中保留斜/悬吊纤维可能会减少胃食管反流病(GERD)和反流性食管炎的发生率,而不会影响该手术的安全性和有效性。本研究通过对比较研究的两两荟萃分析,比较了后斜/悬吊纤维保留POEM (OFS-POEM)和传统后斜/悬吊纤维保留POEM的围手术期、术后运动相关和术后胃食管反流相关结果。方法:我们根据PRISMA指南进行了系统的文献综述,以确定直接比较后路OFS-POEM与传统后路POEM的文章。采用随机效应模型进行两两荟萃分析。效应量以二分数据的比值比和连续数据的平均差异计算。结果:围手术期预后无显著差异,包括平均胃肌切开术长度、平均手术时间和不良事件发生率。同样,术后运动相关结果,如平均Eckardt评分和平均综合放松压力,也没有显著差异。然而,OFS-POEM在症状性胃食管反流发生率上有统计学意义的显著降低,需要治疗的人数(NNT)为10 (95% CI: 6-49)。有趣的是,客观诊断的术后胃食管反流发生率(如DeMeester评分为> - 14的患者数量或反流性食管炎的发生率)无显著差异。结论:本研究提示OFS-POEM可降低POEM后症状性GERD的发生率,而不影响pH值检查(DeMeester评分>14)或内镜检查(反流性食管炎)诊断的GERD发生率。未来需要更大样本量的研究来进一步研究OFS-POEM对胃食管反流发生率的影响,这是由pH研究和内镜检查结果决定的。鉴于本研究的局限性,无法得出明确的结论。需要更大样本量的多中心随机对照试验才能得出更可靠的结论。此外,根据失弛缓症的类型和类别对数据进行分层将为不同类型和类别的失弛缓症的结局是否存在差异提供有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Posterior Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy With Versus Without Sparing of the Oblique/Sling Fibers: A Meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Several studies have hypothesized that sparing the oblique/sling fibers during posterior peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may reduce the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and reflux esophagitis without compromising the established safety and efficacy of the procedure. This study compares perioperative, postoperative motility-related, and postoperative GERD-related outcomes between posterior oblique/sling fibers-sparing POEM (OFS-POEM) and conventional posterior POEM through a pairwise meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines to identify articles directly comparing posterior OFS-POEM with conventional posterior POEM. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data.

Results: No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes, including mean gastric myotomy length, mean operative time, and incidence of adverse events. Similarly, no significant differences were noted in postoperative motility-related outcomes, such as mean Eckardt score and mean integrated relaxation pressure. However, a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of symptomatic GERD was observed in favor of OFS-POEM, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10 (95% CI: 6-49). Interestingly, no significant differences were found in the incidence of objectively diagnosed postoperative GERD, such as the number of patients with DeMeester scores >14 or the incidence of reflux esophagitis.

Conclusions: This study suggests that OFS-POEM may reduce the incidence of symptomatic GERD following POEM, without affecting the incidence of GERD diagnosed by pH studies (DeMeester score >14) or by endoscopy (reflux esophagitis). Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further investigate the impact of OFS-POEM on GERD incidence as determined by pH studies and endoscopic findings. Given the limitations of this study, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Multicenter randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to reach more reliable conclusions. Furthermore, stratifying data according to the type and class of achalasia would provide valuable information on whether there are differences in outcomes among the various types and classes of achalasia.

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.
期刊最新文献
Rectus Sheath and Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks for Preaponeurotic Endoscopic Repair: Is the Double Block the Solution for Postoperative Pain Management? The Impact of Intraoperative CO2 Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review. Factors Predicting Major Complications and Mortality in Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: 8 Years of Experience of a Tertiary Surgery Center. Clinical Results of Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage With Different Hepatic Access and Methods in the Treatment of Obstructive Jaundice. Rectal Eversion as an Anus-sparing Technique in Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection With Double Stapling Anastomosis: Long-term Functional Results.
×
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