Journal of digestive diseases · 2021
Per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy for the endoscopic management of pancreatolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Guzmán-Calderón Edson, Martinez-Moreno Belen, Casellas Juan A, Aparicio José Ramón
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic stones result from chronic pancreatitis and can occur in the main pancreatic duct, pancreatic branches or parenchyma. Although extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is considered the first-line treatment, per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) has emerged as a useful method for treating pancreatic stones. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of POP-guided lithotripsy, electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL), in patients with pancreatolithiasis.
METHODS: Literature review was conducted in PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to August 2020.
RESULTS: Altogether 15 studies were analyzed, of which 11 were retrospective and four were prospective. The studies comprised 370 patients, of whom 66.4% were male. The patients underwent 218 EHL and 155 LL. The pooled technical and clinical success rate of the overall POP was 88.1% and 87.1%. For EHL-POP, the pooled technical success rate was 90.9% (95% CI 87.2%-95.2%) and the pooled clinical success rate was 89.8% (95% CI 87.2%-95.2%). While for LL-POP, the pooled technical and clinical success rate was 88.4% (95% CI 85.9%-95.1%) and 85.8% (95% CI 80.6%-91.6%). In total 43 adverse events occurred (12.1%; 95% CI 8.7%-15.5%).
CONCLUSION: POP-guided lithotripsy has a high rate of technical and clinical success for managing pancreatolithiasis with a low complication rate. Both EHL-POP and LL-POP achieve similar efficacy in the endoscopic therapy of pancreatolithiasis. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to compare EHL-POP and LL-POP with ESWL and evaluate whether POP may replace ESWL as the first-line management of pancreatolithiasis.
METHODS: Literature review was conducted in PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to August 2020.
RESULTS: Altogether 15 studies were analyzed, of which 11 were retrospective and four were prospective. The studies comprised 370 patients, of whom 66.4% were male. The patients underwent 218 EHL and 155 LL. The pooled technical and clinical success rate of the overall POP was 88.1% and 87.1%. For EHL-POP, the pooled technical success rate was 90.9% (95% CI 87.2%-95.2%) and the pooled clinical success rate was 89.8% (95% CI 87.2%-95.2%). While for LL-POP, the pooled technical and clinical success rate was 88.4% (95% CI 85.9%-95.1%) and 85.8% (95% CI 80.6%-91.6%). In total 43 adverse events occurred (12.1%; 95% CI 8.7%-15.5%).
CONCLUSION: POP-guided lithotripsy has a high rate of technical and clinical success for managing pancreatolithiasis with a low complication rate. Both EHL-POP and LL-POP achieve similar efficacy in the endoscopic therapy of pancreatolithiasis. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to compare EHL-POP and LL-POP with ESWL and evaluate whether POP may replace ESWL as the first-line management of pancreatolithiasis.