Dataset Information

Endoscopic treatment of large symptomatic colon lipomas: A systematic review of efficacy and safety.

ABSTRACT: Background: Various techniques have been described for endoscopic resection of large symptomatic colon lipomas. Lipoma unroofing might provide a safer, more time efficient and easier technique compared to dissection-based techniques, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or loop-assisted resection. The aim of this systematic review was to compare efficacy and safety (endoscopic resolution rates, clinical remission rates and adverse events) of lipoma unroofing with respect to dissection-based techniques, EMR or loop-assisted resection.

Methods: As most outcomes were binary in nature and several outcomes did not occur in some studies, routine calculation of standard errors in outcome probability was not possible. Therefore, original patient data were extracted, after which efficacy and safety were compared.

Results: Twenty four studies met the selection criteria, which encompassed 77 lesions (46.8% female, mean age 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53-72 years), mean size 45.4?mm (IQR 30.0-60.0?mm). Ten patients underwent unroofing (13.0%), whereas 7 (9.1%), 31 (40.3%) and 29 patients (37.7%) underwent dissection-based techniques, EMR and loop-assisted-snare resection, respectively. Endoscopic resolution rates were 60%, 100% (p?=?0.103), 93.6% (p?=?0.024) and 93.1% (p?=?0.028). Clinical remission rates were identical in all four groups (100%). Amongst patients who underwent EMR and loop-assisted techniques, adverse events were identified in 12.9% (p?=?0.556) and 13.8% (p?=?0.556), respectively, compared to none in the unroofing and dissection-based resection group.

Conclusions: In patients with large colon lipomas, endoscopic treatment by unroofing, dissection-based resection, EMR and loop-assisted resection provided similar clinical remission rates. Amongst patients undergoing EMR and loop-assisted resection, increased endoscopic resolution rates were seen at the expense of more adverse events, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Until more reliable comparative data are available, the most optimal resection technique should rely on local expertise and patient profile.

SUBMITTER: Bronswijk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7724534 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endoscopic treatment of large symptomatic colon lipomas: A systematic review of efficacy and safety.

Bronswijk Michiel M Vandenbroucke Anne-Marie AM Bossuyt Peter P

United European gastroenterology journal 20200803 10

<h4>Background</h4>Various techniques have been described for endoscopic resection of large symptomatic colon lipomas. Lipoma unroofing might provide a safer, more time efficient and easier technique compared to dissection-based techniques, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or loop-assisted resection. The aim of this systematic review was to compare efficacy and safety (endoscopic resolution rates, clinical remission rates and adverse events) of lipoma unroofing with respect to dissection-based ...[more]

PMID: 32746773

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSmall bowel lipomas are rarely encountered benign adipose growths found within the small intestine wall or mesentery. Limited up-to-date evidence exists regarding such lipomas. We aim to aid clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes through this comprehensive review.MethodologyThe terms 'small bowel,' 'small intestine,' 'jejunum' and 'ileum' were combined with 'lipoma.' EMBASE, Medline and PubMed database searches were performed. All papers published in English from 01/01/2000-31/12/2019 were included. Simple statistical analysis (t-test, Anova) was performed.Results142 papers yielded 147 cases (adults = 138, pediatric = 9). Male = 88, female = 59 (average age = 49.9 years). Presenting symptoms: abdominal pain = 68.7%; nausea/vomiting = 35.3%, hematochezia/GI bleeding = 33.3%; anaemia = 10.9%; abdominal distension = 12.2%; constipation = 8.9%; weight loss = 7.5%. Mean preceding symptom length = 58.1 days (symptoms >1 year excluded (n = 9)). Diagnostic imaging utilised: abdominal X-Ray = 33.3%; endoscopy = 46.3%; CT = 78.2%; ultrasound = 23.8%. 124/137 (90.5%) required definitive surgical management (laparotomy = 89, laparoscopcic = 35). 9 patients were successfully managed endoscopically. Lipoma location: ileum = 59.9%, jejunum = 32%, mesentery = 4.8%. Maximal recorded lipoma size ranged 1.2-22 cm.Mean maximum lipoma diameter and management strategy comparison: laparotomy 5.6 cm, laparoscopic = 4.4 cm, endoscopic = 3.7 cm, conservative = 4.5 cm. One-way Anova test, p value = 0.21. Average length of stay (LOS) was 7.4 days (range = 2-30). T-test p value = 0.13 when comparing management modalities and LOS. 4 complications, 0 mortality.ConclusionsImportant previously undocumented points are illustrated; a clearer symptom profile, diagnostic investigations utilised, size and site of lipomas, types and effectiveness of management modalities, associated morbidity and mortality. Open surgery remains the primary management. No statistically significant difference in LOS and lipoma size is demonstrated between management strategies. Endoscopic and laparoscopic techniques may reduce utilising invasive surgery in the future as skillset and availability improve.

Project description:BackgroundAdjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common complication after lumbar fusion and is still traditionally treated by open surgery. In recent years, with the development of minimally invasive techniques, percutaneous endoscopic surgery(PES) has been used for the treatment of ASD after lumbar fusion due to its unique benefits. Nevertheless, it remains unclear about its significant clinical efficacy and advantages over conventional open surgery.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of PES in the treatment of ASD after lumbar fusion.Study designA systematic review and meta-analysis studies about the role of PES in managing ASD after lumbar fusion.MethodsA systematic search review was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed databases from the start of their construction to 15 November 2021. Eligible studies included references to clinical trials of PES for ASD after open lumbar fusion. Observations included pain relief, recovery of postoperative function, overall excellent rates, and indicators of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional surgery. Postoperative complications and recurrence rates were also recorded.ResultsA total of 24 studies, including 20 single-arm studies and 4 clinical control studies, all involving 928 patients were included. A total of 694 patients were included in the single-arm analysis. The results of the single-arm meta-analysis showed that PES could significantly reduce low back and leg pain and improve the functional status of the lumbar spine in patients with ASD after open lumbar fusion compared to preoperatively, and had good clinical efficacy after surgery. A total of 234 patients were included in the four clinically controlled studies, and the results of the meta-analysis showed that PES could clearly reduce pain and improve lumbar function, with no significant difference in efficacy between PES and open surgery. However, PES has a lower surgical incision, less intraoperative bleeding, and shorter operative time and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. Moreover, it has a lower rate of postoperative recurrence as well as complications and a longer duration of efficacy.ConclusionsOn the basis of the available clinical literature and the results of this study, PES could achieve satisfactory clinical effects in ASD treatment after lumbar fusion. Compared with conventional open surgery, PES can not only obtain similar clinical results, but also had the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery. Nevertheless, a randomized controlled study is still needed to validate the findings of this study.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022298387.

Project description:BackgroundThere are still clinical controversy on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection (ER) and laparoscopic resection (LR) in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ER in the treatment of GISTs by comparing the relative outcomes of ER to LR.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. Data were retrieved from January 2010 to January 2020 and subjected to a meta-analysis based on the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of ER and LR. The intervention arm was treated by LR while the comparator arm was treated by ER. Relevant literature was selected based on the inclusion criteria, data was extracted, and quality evaluation of the included literature was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied for assessing the quality of included studies. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochrane χ2 test and I2 statistic, and Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to detect publication bias.ResultsThe present analysis included 13 studies, comprising a total of 1,261 patients, (ER vs. LR: 543 vs. 718). The incidence rate of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.400; P=0.001] was significantly lower in the ER group [3.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.015 to 0.055] than the LR group (8.9%; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17). The meta-analysis revealed that the recurrence rate following ER (1.7%; 95% CI, 0.005 to 0.033) was lower than that following LR (2.5%; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.041). The R0 resection rate of ER (99%; 95% CI, 0.975 to 0.999) was similar to that of LR (100%; 95% CI, 0.995 to 1.000). No publication bias in this study (P>0.10), and the sensitivity analysis showed that the study was robust.ConclusionsER was safer and more efficient than LR in terms of all the outcomes, except the R0 resection rate. Thus, ER should be considered the treatment of choice. However, attention should be paid to the surgical margin status following ER.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic treatment of large symptomatic colon lipomas: A systematic review of efficacy and safety.

Publications

Endoscopic treatment of large symptomatic colon lipomas: A systematic review of efficacy and safety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets