Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
Efficacy of cap-assisted endoscopy for the visualization of the major duodenal papilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iqbal Umair, Yodice Michael, Ahmed Zohaib, Lee-Smith Wade, Adler Douglas G, Confer Bradley D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The current standard of practice is to use a duodenoscope for the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla (MDP). Recently, cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE), which uses a transparent cap at the tip of a standard front-viewing endoscope, has emerged as an alternative.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in several databases from inception to January 2023 to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of CAE for the evaluation of the MDP.
RESULTS: Nine studies including 806 patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of technical success for CAE was 93.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.6-96.9; I2 = 84.6%). A subgroup analysis comparing CAE with a standard endoscope showed higher odds for the evaluation of the MDP with CAE (but not a duodenoscope, which was better than CAE) with an odds ratio of 57.294 (95% confidence interval, 17.767-184.755; I2 = 45.303%).
CONCLUSIONS: CAE offers a significant advantage with high rates of complete MDP evaluation compared with standard forward-viewing endoscopy. However, CAE is associated with lower rates of success when compared with side-viewing endoscopes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in several databases from inception to January 2023 to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of CAE for the evaluation of the MDP.
RESULTS: Nine studies including 806 patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of technical success for CAE was 93.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.6-96.9; I2 = 84.6%). A subgroup analysis comparing CAE with a standard endoscope showed higher odds for the evaluation of the MDP with CAE (but not a duodenoscope, which was better than CAE) with an odds ratio of 57.294 (95% confidence interval, 17.767-184.755; I2 = 45.303%).
CONCLUSIONS: CAE offers a significant advantage with high rates of complete MDP evaluation compared with standard forward-viewing endoscopy. However, CAE is associated with lower rates of success when compared with side-viewing endoscopes.