Dataset Information

EUS-guided pelvic drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a stent, catheter, or both for drainage of the target abscess. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the safety and efficacy of EUS-PAD.

Materials and methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to February 2020). The primary outcomes for this study were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PAD. The secondary outcomes assessed for this study were adverse events of the procedure and subgroup analysis of individual adverse events.

Results

Eight studies with a total of 135 patients combined were included in our analysis. The rate of technical success was 100% and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%, 98%; P = 0.31; I² = 15%). The calculated pooled rate of adverse events was 9.4% (±17.9%), with stent migration (5.5 ± 18.06%) being the most common adverse event.

Conclusion

EUS-PAD offers a viable alternative that can minimize the need for surgical intervention in the drainage of pelvic abscesses. EUS-PAD has also demonstrated long-term clinical success with an acceptable rate of complications.

SUBMITTER: Dhindsa BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8248303 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Recently, percutaneous drainage (PD) has emerged as an alternative therapy in select patients. In this study, we compare mortality and complications in patients with SA treated with splenectomy versus PD. Patients and Methods: A systematic literature search of 13 databases and online search engines was conducted from 2019 to 2020. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model (BGLMM) was used to conduct a separate meta-analysis for both mortality and complications. We used the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate risk of bias in non-randomized studies, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Results were presented according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: The review included 46 retrospective studies from 21 countries. For mortality rate, 27 studies compared splenectomy and PD whereas 10 used PD only and nine used splenectomy only. Data for major complications were available in 18 two-arm studies, seven single-arm studies with PD, and seven single-arm studies with splenectomy. Of a total of 589 patients, 288 were treated with splenectomy and 301 underwent PD. Mortality rate was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-17%) in patients undergoing splenectomy compared with 8% (95% CI, 4%-13%) with PD. Complication rates were 26% (95% CI, 16%-37%) in the splenectomy group compared with 10% (95% CI, 4%-17%) in the PD group. Conclusions: Percutaneous drainage s associated with a trend toward lower complications and mortality rates compared with splenectomy in the treatment of SA, however, these findings were not statistically significant. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, further prospective studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.