Surgical endoscopy · 2017
Stent migration following endoscopic suture fixation of esophageal self-expandable metal stents: 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.
Law Ryan, Prabhu Anoop, Fujii-Lau Larissa, Shannon Carol, Singh Siddharth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are utilized for the management of benign and malignant esophageal conditions; however, covered SEMS are prone to migration. Endoscopic suture fixation may mitigate the migration risk of covered esophageal SEMS. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic suture fixation for covered esophageal SEMS.
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review from 2011 to 2016 to identify studies (case control/case series) reporting the technical success and migration rate of covered esophageal SEMS following endoscopic suture fixation. We searched multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings. We calculated pooled rates (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of technical success and stent migration using a random effects model.
RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (212 patients) describing covered esophageal SEMS placement with endoscopic suture fixation. When reported, SEMS indications included leak/fistula (n = 75), stricture (n = 65), perforation (n = 10), and achalasia (n = 4). The pooled technical success rate was 96.7% (95% CI 92.3-98.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). We identified 29 SEMS migrations at rate of 15.9% (95% CI 11.4-21.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). Publication bias was observed, and using the trim-and-fill method, a more conservative estimate for stent migration was 17.0%. Suture-related adverse events were estimated to occur in 3.7% (95% CI 1.6-8.2) of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suture fixation of covered esophageal SEMS appears to reduce stent migration when compared to published rates of non-anchored SEMS. However, SEMS migration still occurs in approximately 1 out of 6 cases despite excellent immediate technical success and low risk of suture-related adverse events.
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review from 2011 to 2016 to identify studies (case control/case series) reporting the technical success and migration rate of covered esophageal SEMS following endoscopic suture fixation. We searched multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings. We calculated pooled rates (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of technical success and stent migration using a random effects model.
RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (212 patients) describing covered esophageal SEMS placement with endoscopic suture fixation. When reported, SEMS indications included leak/fistula (n = 75), stricture (n = 65), perforation (n = 10), and achalasia (n = 4). The pooled technical success rate was 96.7% (95% CI 92.3-98.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). We identified 29 SEMS migrations at rate of 15.9% (95% CI 11.4-21.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). Publication bias was observed, and using the trim-and-fill method, a more conservative estimate for stent migration was 17.0%. Suture-related adverse events were estimated to occur in 3.7% (95% CI 1.6-8.2) of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suture fixation of covered esophageal SEMS appears to reduce stent migration when compared to published rates of non-anchored SEMS. However, SEMS migration still occurs in approximately 1 out of 6 cases despite excellent immediate technical success and low risk of suture-related adverse events.