Stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy versus stent placement for the treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

A Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Stenting Versus Surgical Treatment for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and endoscopic stenting (ES) are the two most available treatments for palliation of malignant gastric obstruction (MGOO). The aim of this study is to compare these two techniques regarding efficacy, safety, time of hospitalization and survival.

METHODS

We performed a literature search from January 2010 to September 2020 to identify available randomized controlled studies and observational studies that compared ES and GJJ for the treatment of MGOO.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were found. ES and GJJ showed similar technical and clinical success rate. ES was superior to obtain early oral re-feeding, shorter length of hospitalization and a lower incidence of complications than GJJ. Surgical palliation had a lower recurrence rate of obstructive symptoms and longer overall survival than ES.

CONCLUSIONS

Both procedures have advantages and disadvantages. Probably we should not find the best palliation but the best approach based on the patient characteristics and tumor type.

Gastrojejunostomy versus endoscopic stenting for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Though gastrojejunostomy (GJ) has been a standard palliative procedure for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), endoscopic stenting (ES) has shown to provide benefits due to its non-invasive approach. The aim of this review is to perform a comprehensive evaluation of ES versus GJ for the palliation of malignant GOO.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched and comparative studies of adult GOO patients undergoing ES or GJ were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were survival time and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, reinterventions, days until oral food tolerance, postoperative adjuvant palliative chemotherapy, postoperative morbidities, length of stay (LOS), and costs. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse-variance random effects were performed.

RESULTS

After identifying 2222 citations, 39 full-text articles fit the inclusion criteria. In total, 3128 ES patients (41.4% female, age: 68.0 years) and 2116 GJ patients (40.4% female, age: 66.8 years) were included. ES patients experienced a shorter survival time (mean difference -24.77 days, 95% Cl - 45.11 to  - 4.43, p = 0.02) and were less likely to undergo adjuvant palliative chemotherapy (risk ratio 0.81, 95% Cl 0.70 to 0.93, p = 0.004). The ES group had a shorter LOS, shorter time to oral intake of liquids and solids, and less surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.30, 95% Cl 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01). The patients in the ES group were at greater risk of requiring reintervention (risk ratio 2.60, 95% Cl 1.87 to 3.63, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ES results in less postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS when compared to GJ, however, this may be at the cost of decreased initiation of adjuvant palliative chemotherapy and overall survival, as well as increased risk of reintervention. Both techniques are likely appropriate in select clinical scenarios.

Comparison of gastrojejunostomy to endoscopic stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: An updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the optimal intervention modality for malignant GOO by comparing clinical outcomes after Gastrojejunostomy and endoscopic stenting.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles before February 2021 to compare the clinical outcomes of GOO patients undergoing GJ or ES.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 31 articles with 2444 GOO patients. Although the GJ group outperformed the ES group in technical success (OR,3.79; P = 0.003), clinical success was not significantly different between the two groups (OR,1.25; P = 0.50). The GJ group had a longer hospitalization, lower re-obstruction and lower reintervention. Moreover, GJ had a better survival than ES in the gastric cancer group (HR, 0.33; P = 0.009). However, no significant statistical difference was observed in the pancreatic cancer group (HR, 0.55; P = 0.159).

CONCLUSIONS

Both GJ and ES are safe and effective intervention modalities for malignant GOO. GJ had significantly improved survival in gastric cancer patients with GOO, while no significant difference was observed between the two groups in pancreatic cancer patients with GOO.