Surgical endoscopy · 2024
Fully covered self-expandable metal stents versus multiple plastic stents for the treatment of post-orthotopic liver transplant anastomotic biliary strictures: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Baraldo Stefano, Meine Gilmara Coelho, Santo Paula Arruda Espirito, Barbosa Eduardo Cerchi, Nau Angélica Luciana, Keane Margaret G, Chavan Radhika, Kuo Yu-Ting, Ligresti Dario
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The most common adverse event (AE) of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is anastomotic biliary stricture (ABS). Management varies widely between centers, and it is not clear whether a combination of endoscopic dilation of the stenosis followed by multiple plastic stents (MPS) or placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (fcSEMS) is better for the management of post-OLT ABS. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of fcSEMS versus MPS in the treatment of post-OLT ABS.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fcSEMS with MPS for the treatment of patients with post-OLT ABS and reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The study included 5 RCTs (245 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between fcSEMS and MPS in stricture resolution (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; p = 0.86), stricture recurrence (RR 2.22; 95% CI 0.73 to 6.75; p = 0.16), treatment cost (MD - 5.31 thousand dollars 95% CI -12.76 to 2.13; p = 0.16), and AEs (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; p = 0.82). However, fcSEMS reduced the number of ERCP sessions (MD - 1.7 sessions; CI 95% - 2.9 to - 0.5; p = 0.005) and treatment duration (MD-95.7 days; 95% CI -184.5 to -6.9; p = 0.03) compared with MPS.
CONCLUSION: fcSEMS and MPS had similar efficacy and safety in patients with ABS post-OLT. However, fcSEMS was associated with fewer ERCP sessions and shorter treatment duration.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fcSEMS with MPS for the treatment of patients with post-OLT ABS and reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The study included 5 RCTs (245 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between fcSEMS and MPS in stricture resolution (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; p = 0.86), stricture recurrence (RR 2.22; 95% CI 0.73 to 6.75; p = 0.16), treatment cost (MD - 5.31 thousand dollars 95% CI -12.76 to 2.13; p = 0.16), and AEs (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; p = 0.82). However, fcSEMS reduced the number of ERCP sessions (MD - 1.7 sessions; CI 95% - 2.9 to - 0.5; p = 0.005) and treatment duration (MD-95.7 days; 95% CI -184.5 to -6.9; p = 0.03) compared with MPS.
CONCLUSION: fcSEMS and MPS had similar efficacy and safety in patients with ABS post-OLT. However, fcSEMS was associated with fewer ERCP sessions and shorter treatment duration.