Annals of gastroenterology · 2024
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment versus balloon enteroscopy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ahmed Zohaib, Iqbal Amna, Aziz Muhammad, Iqbal Fatima, Gangwani Manesh Kumar, Sohail Abdullah, Chaudhary Ammad, Smith Wade-Lee, Hayat Umar, Singh Shailendra, Mohan Babu P, Javaid Toseef
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safety and technical success of endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment (EUS-AG) compared to balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (BE-ERCP) for choledocholithiasis in Roux-en-Y gastrectomy has not been well documented. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of the 2 procedures.
METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases was undertaken through January 25, 2024, to identify relevant studies comparing the 2 procedures. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using a random-effects model. For each outcome, risk-ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-values were generated. P<0.05 was considered significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic.
RESULTS: Three studies with 795 patients (95 in the EUS-AG group and 700 in the BE-ERCP group) were included. The technical success rate was similar between EUS-AG and BE-ERCP (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.84-1.38; P=0.57; I 2=56%). The overall rate of adverse effects was higher in the BE-ERCP group than in the EUS-AG group (RR 1.95, 95%CI 1.21-3.15; P=0.006; I 2=0 %). Rates of clinical success, pancreatitis, perforation, and bile peritonitis were similar between the 2 procedure techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed no distinct advantage in using one technique over the other for patients with Roux-en-Y anatomy in achieving technical and clinical success. However, the incidence of adverse effects was greater in the BE-ERCP group than in the EUS-AG group.
METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases was undertaken through January 25, 2024, to identify relevant studies comparing the 2 procedures. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using a random-effects model. For each outcome, risk-ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-values were generated. P<0.05 was considered significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic.
RESULTS: Three studies with 795 patients (95 in the EUS-AG group and 700 in the BE-ERCP group) were included. The technical success rate was similar between EUS-AG and BE-ERCP (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.84-1.38; P=0.57; I 2=56%). The overall rate of adverse effects was higher in the BE-ERCP group than in the EUS-AG group (RR 1.95, 95%CI 1.21-3.15; P=0.006; I 2=0 %). Rates of clinical success, pancreatitis, perforation, and bile peritonitis were similar between the 2 procedure techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed no distinct advantage in using one technique over the other for patients with Roux-en-Y anatomy in achieving technical and clinical success. However, the incidence of adverse effects was greater in the BE-ERCP group than in the EUS-AG group.