Dataset Information

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Background

Treatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies.

Methods

We performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 criteria and searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trails that compared an endoscopic treatment to a surgical treatment for patients with infected walled-off necrosis and included one of the main outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The main outcomes were mortality and new onset multiple organ failure. Prospero registration ID: CRD42019126033 RESULTS: Three RCTs with 190 patients were included. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference in mortality. However, patients in the endoscopic group had statistically significant lower odds of experiencing new onset multiple organ failure (odds ratio (OR) confidence interval [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.98]) and were statistically less likely to suffer from perforations of visceral organs or enterocutaneous fistulae (OR [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93]), and pancreatic fistulae (OR [CI] 0.09 [0.03, 0.28]). Patients with endoscopic treatment had a statistically significant lower mean hospital stay (Mean difference [CI] - 7.86 days [- 14.49, - 1.22]). No differences in bleeding requiring intervention, incisional hernia, exocrine or endocrine insufficiency or ICU stay were apparent. Overall certainty of evidence was moderate.

Conclusion

There seem to be possible benefits of endoscopic treatment procedure. Given the heterogenous procedures in the surgical group as well as the low amount of randomized evidence, further studies are needed to evaluate the combination of different approaches and appropriate timepoints for interventions.

SUBMITTER: Haney CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7214487 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Haney C M CM Kowalewski K F KF Schmidt M W MW Koschny R R Felinska E A EA Kalkum E E Probst P P Diener M K MK Müller-Stich B P BP Hackert T T Nickel F F

Surgical endoscopy 20200228 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT).<h4>Background</h4>Treatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guid ...[more]

PMID: 32112252

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundPancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) which can be severe and cause death in approximately 10% of cases. Up to now, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been found relevant to the effect of allopurinol on prevention of Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, these results remained controversial.ObjectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis with RCTs published in full text to determine the effectiveness of prophylactic allopurinol of different dosages and administration time in the incidence and severity of PEP.MethodsLiterature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from databases inception to May 2014. RCTs comparing the effect of allopurinol with placebo on prevention of PEP were included. Statistical heterogeneity was quantitatively evaluated by?2 test with the significance set P<0.10 or I2>50%.ResultsSix RCTs consisting of 1974 participants were eventually included. The incidences of PEP in allopurinol group and placebo group were 8.4%(83/986) and 9.9%(98/988) respectively. Meta-analysis showed no evident prevention effect of allopurinol on the incidence of PEP (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.39-1.42) with significant heterogeneity (I2?=?70.4%, P?=?0.005). When studies were stratified according to the dosages and administration time of allopurinol they applied, there was still no evident prevention effect of allopurinol on mild, moderate or severe PEP. However, statistically substantial heterogeneity was presented in the subgroup of moderate PEP when the effect of high dose of allopurinol was analyzed (Imoderate2?=?82.3%, Pmoderate?=?0.018). Statistically significant heterogeneity was also observed in subgroup of mild PEP, when the effect of long adminstration time of allopurinol was investigated (Imild2?=?62.8%, Pmild?=?0.068).ConclusionThe prophylactic use of allopurinol in different dosages and administration time had no effect in preventing incidence and severity of PEP.

Project description:Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of three methods of open necrosectomy, minimally invasive surgery and endoscopic step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and CNKI full text database (CNKI) (to December 25, 2019). RCT, prospective cohort study (PCS), and retrospective cohort study (RCS) comparing the effectiveness and safety of any two of above-mentioned three methods were included. Results: There was no significant difference in major complications or death, and mortality between the minimally invasive surgery treatment group and the endoscopic step-up approach treatment group (RR = 1.66, 95%CI: 0.83-3.33, P = 0.15; RR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.59-1.86, P = 0.87); the incidence rate of new-onset multiple organ failure, enterocutaneous fistula, pancreatic-cutaneous fistula, intra-abdominal bleeding, and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency in the endoscopic step-up approach treatment group was significantly lower than minimally invasive surgery group (RR = 2.65, 95%CI: 1.10-6.36, P = 0.03; RR = 6.63, 95%CI: 1.59-27.60, P = 0.009; RR = 7.73, 95%CI: 3.00-19.89, P < 0.0001; RR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.13-3.24, P = 0.02; RR = 1.83, 95%CI: 1.9-3.16, P = 0.02); hospital stay in the endoscopic step-up approach group was significantly shorter than minimally invasive surgical treatment group (MD = 11.26, 95%CI: 5.46-17.05, P = 0.0001). The incidence of pancreatic-cutaneous fistula in the endoscopic escalation step therapy group was significantly lower than that in the open necrosectomy group (RR = 0.11, 95%CI: 0.02-0.58, P = 0.009). Conclusion: Compared with minimally invasive surgery and open necrosectomy, although endoscopic step-up approach cannot reduce the main complications or death and mortality of patients, it can significantly reduce the incidence of some serious complications, such as pancreatic-cutaneous fistula, enterocutaneous fistula, intra-abdominal bleeding, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and can significantly shorten the patient's hospital stay.

Project description:BackgroundCarbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO2 as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO2 insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results.ObjectivesThis meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO2 insufflation for ESD.MethodsClinical trials of CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for ESD were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).ResultsEleven studies which compared the use of CO2 insufflation and air insufflation, with a combined study population of 1026 patients, were included in the meta-analysis (n = 506 for CO2 insufflation; n = 522 for air insufflation). Abdominal pain and VAS scores at 6h and 24h post-procedure in the CO2 insufflation group were significantly lower than those in the air insufflation group, but not at 1h and 3h after ESD. The percentage of patients who experienced pain 1h and 24h post-procedure was obviously decreased. Use of CO2 insufflation was associated with lower VAS scores for abdominal distention at 1h after ESD, but not at 24h after ESD. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative transcutaneous partial pressure carbon dioxide (PtcCO2), arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2%), abdominal circumference, hospital stay, white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-Reactive protein (CRP) level, dosage of sedatives used, incidence of dysphagia and other complications.ConclusionUse of CO2 insufflation for ESD was safe and effective with regard to abdominal discomfort, procedure time, and the residual gas volume. However, there appeared no significant differences with respect to other parameters namely, PtcCO2, PaCO2, SpO2%, abdominal circumference, hospital stay, sedation dosage, complications, WBC, CRP, and dysphagia.

Project description:BackgroundInfected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15-20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention.MethodsPOINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization.DiscussionThe POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis.Trial registrationISRCTN, 33682933 . Registered on 6 August 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objective

Background

Methods

Conclusion

Publications

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets