Stent as a bridge to surgery for colonic obstruction: Do we really need more systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the same articles?

Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus endoscopic stenting for upper gastrointestinal transmural defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal fistulas, leaks, and perforations represent a high cost burden to health systems worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates for affected patients. Management of these transmural defects remains therapeutically challenging.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) versus endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for treatment of upper gastrointestinal transmural defects.

METHODS

Searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Latin American and Caribbean Health (LILACS), and gray literature, as well as a manual search to identify studies comparing SEMS versus EVT to treat upper gastrointestinal transmural defects. Evaluated outcomes were: rates of successful closure, mortality, length of hospital stay, duration of treatment, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 274 patients were included. There was a 21% increase in successful fistula closure attributed to EVT compared with the SEMS group (RD 0.21, CI 0.10-0.32; P = 0.0003). EVT demonstrated a 12% reduction in mortality compared to stenting (RD 0.12, CI 0.03-0.21; P = 0.006) and an average reduction of 14.22 days in duration of treatment (CI 8.38-20.07; P < 0.00001). There was a 24% reduction in adverse events (RD 0.24, CI 0.13-0.35; P = 0.0001. There were no statistical differences between the studied therapies regarding the length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic vacuum therapy proves to be superior in successful defect closure, mortality, adverse events and duration of treatment.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography drainage for palliation of malignant hilar biliary obstruction — stent-in-stent or side-by-side? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biliary drainage, either by the stent-in-stent (SIS) or side-by-side (SBS) technique, is often required when treating a malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). Both methods differ from each other and have distinct advantages.

AIM

To compare both techniques regarding their efficacy and safety in achieving drainage of MHBO.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIREME, Cochrane) was conducted and grey literature from their inception until December 2020 with no restrictions regarding the year of publication or language, since there was at least an abstract in English. The included studies compared SIS and SBS techniques through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Outcomes analyzed included technical and clinical success, early and late adverse events (AEs), stent patency, reintervention, and procedure-related mortality.

RESULTS

Four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial evaluating a total of 250 patients (127 in the SIS group and 123 in the SBS group) were included in this study. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups concerning the evaluated outcomes, except for stent patency, which was higher in the SIS compared with the SBS technique [mean difference (d) = 33.31; 95% confidence interval: 9.73 to 56.90, I² = 45%, P = 0.006].

CONCLUSION

The SIS method showed superior stent patency when compared to SBS for achieving bilateral drainage in MHBO. Both techniques are equivalent in terms of technical success, clinical success, rates of both early and late AEs, reintervention, and procedure-related mortality.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

Conclusion

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

Obstructing Left-Sided Colonic Cancer: Is Endoscopic Stenting a Bridge to Surgery or a Bridge to Nowhere?

For the 8-29% colorectal cancers that initially manifest with obstruction, emergency surgery (ES) was traditionally considered the only available therapy, despite high morbidity and mortality rates and the need for colostomy creation. More recently, malignant obstruction of the left colon can be temporized by endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS), used as bridge to surgery (BTS), facilitating a laparoscopic approach and increasing the likelihood that a primary anastomosis instead of stoma would be used. Despite these attractive outcomes, the superiority of the BTS approach is not clearly established. Few authors have stressed the potential cancer risk associated with perforations that may occur during endoscopic stent placement, facilitating neoplastic spread and negatively impacting prognosis. For this reason, the current literature focuses on long-term oncologic outcomes such as disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrence rate that do seem not to differ between the ES and BTS approaches. This lack of consensus has spawned differing and sometimes discordant guidelines worldwide. In conclusion, 20 years after the first description of a colonic stent as BTS, the debate is still open, but the growing number of articles about the use of SEMS as a BTS signifies a great interest in the topic. We hope that these data will finally converge on a single set of recommendations supporting a management strategy with well-demonstrated superiority.

Colorectal stenting in England: a cross-sectional study of practice

INTRODUCTION

UK and European guidelines recommend consideration of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) as an alternative to emergency surgery in left-sided colonic obstruction. However, there is no clear consensus on stenting owing to concern for complications and long-term outcomes. Our study is the first to explore SEMS provision across England.

METHODS

All colorectal surgery department leads in England were contacted in 2018 and invited to complete an objective multiple choice questionnaire pertaining to service provision of colorectal stenting (including referrals, time, location and specialty).

RESULTS

Of 182 hospitals contacted, 79 responded (24 teaching hospitals, 55 district general hospitals). All hospitals considered stenting, with 92% performing stenting and the remainder referring. The majority (93%) performed fewer than four stenting procedures per month. Most (96%) stented during normal weekday hours, with only 25% stenting out of hours and 23% at weekends. Compared with district general hospitals, a higher proportion of teaching hospitals stented out of hours and at weekends. Stenting was performed in the radiology department (64%), the endoscopy department (44%) and operating theatres (15%), by surgeons (63%), radiologists (60%) and gastroenterologists (48%). A radiologist was present in 66% of cases. Of 14 hospitals that received referrals, 3 had a protocol, 3 returned patients the same day and 4 returned patients for management in the event of failure.

CONCLUSIONS

All responding hospitals in England consider the use of SEMS in colonic obstruction. Nevertheless, there is great variation in stenting practices, and challenges in terms of access and expertise. Centralisation and regional referral networks may help maximise availability and expertise but more work is needed to support this.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of early rectal tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive treatment of early-stage rectal lesion has presented good results, with lower morbidity than surgical resection. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) are the main methods of transanal surgery. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been gaining ground because it allows en bloc resections with low recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to analyze ESD in comparison with transanal endoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Lilacs/Bireme with no restrictions on the date or language of publication. The outcomes evaluated were recurrence rate, complete (R0) resection rate, en bloc resection rate, length of hospital stay, duration of the procedure, and complication rate.

RESULTS

Six retrospective cohort studies involving a collective total of 326 patients-191 in the ESD group and 135 in the transanal endoscopic surgery group were conducted. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any of the outcomes evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

For the minimally invasive treatment of early rectal tumor, ESD and surgical techniques do not differ in terms of local recurrence, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, duration of the procedure, length of hospital stay, or complication rate, however, evidence is very low.