Surgical endoscopy · 2025
Evaluating the use of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction and comparing to EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy alone for patients who failed ERCP: a pairwise and single-arm meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Martins Otavio Cosendey, Antunes Vanio, da Costa Marcelo Cristalli Pacheco, Florêncio de Mesquita Cynthia, Correa Tulio L, Fernandes Matheus Vanzin, Milioli Natália Junkes, Baraldo Stefano
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: When ERCP is not feasible in the management of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been proven to be a valuable alternative. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) carries a relatively high risk of complications. To mitigate these risks, EUS-guided antegrade stenting combined with EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS) has been explored. We aimed to conduct a pairwise and a single-arm meta-analysis comparing both techniques and analyzing the efficacy and safety of HGAS for MBO, respectively.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies enrolling patients who underwent EUS-HGAS placement with or without a control group of EUS-HGS without antegrade stenting. We used R statistical software, version 4.4.1.
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis, and 11 studies were included in the single-arm meta-analysis. Analysis of the need for reintervention showed a significant difference between HGAS and HGS groups, favoring HGAS (p = 0.005), but this group also had a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (p = 0.027). For HGAS, the pooled analyses demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates (94.06% and 98.05%, respectively); a need for reintervention rate of 8.03%, an overall adverse events rate of 11.67%, mean survival time of 118.53 days, and mean time to stent dysfunction or patient death of 134.61 days.
CONCLUSION: The performance of HGAS in patients who failed ECRP for MBO showed lower need for reintervention rates but higher pancreatitis rates compared to HGS alone. Performing HGAS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates and a low overall adverse event occurrence.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies enrolling patients who underwent EUS-HGAS placement with or without a control group of EUS-HGS without antegrade stenting. We used R statistical software, version 4.4.1.
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis, and 11 studies were included in the single-arm meta-analysis. Analysis of the need for reintervention showed a significant difference between HGAS and HGS groups, favoring HGAS (p = 0.005), but this group also had a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (p = 0.027). For HGAS, the pooled analyses demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates (94.06% and 98.05%, respectively); a need for reintervention rate of 8.03%, an overall adverse events rate of 11.67%, mean survival time of 118.53 days, and mean time to stent dysfunction or patient death of 134.61 days.
CONCLUSION: The performance of HGAS in patients who failed ECRP for MBO showed lower need for reintervention rates but higher pancreatitis rates compared to HGS alone. Performing HGAS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates and a low overall adverse event occurrence.