Annals of medicine · 2023
Endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Tang Penghao, Ali Kamran, Khizar Hayat, Ni Yuanzhi, Cheng Zhiwen, Xu Benfeng, Qin Zhiwen, Zhang Wu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.
METHODS: We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.
METHODS: We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.