Pain relief in chronic pancreatitis: endoscopic or surgical treatment? a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pain is one of the consequences of chronic pancreatitis (CP) that has the greatest impact on the quality of life of patients. Endoscopic and surgical interventions, by producing a decrease in intraductal pancreatic pressure, can provide pain relief. This is the first systematic review that includes only randomized clinical trials (RTCs) comparing outcomes in the short-term (less than 2 years) and long-term (more than 2 years) between these two types of interventions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify RTCs comparing short and long-term pain relief, procedural complications, and days of hospitalization between endoscopic and surgical interventions was performed following the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Three RCTs evaluating a total of 199 patients (99 in the endoscopy group and 100 in the surgery group) were included in this study. Surgical interventions provided complete pain relief, with statistical difference, in the long-term (16,4% vs 35.7%; RD 0.19; 95% CI 0.03-0.35; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), without significant difference in short-term (17.5% vs 31.2%; RD 0.14; 95% CI -0.01-0.28; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%) when compared to endoscopy. There was no statistical difference in short-term (17.5% vs 28.1%; RD 0.11; 95% CI -0.04-0.25; p = 0.15; I2 = 0%) and long-term (34% vs 41.1%; RD 0.07; 95% CI -0.10-0.24; p = 0.42; I2 0%) in partial relief of pain between both interventions. In the short-term, both complications (34.9% vs 29.7%; RD 0.05; 95% CI -0.10-0.21; p = 0.50; I2 = 48%) and days of hospitalization (MD -1.02; 95% CI -2.61-0.58; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%) showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Surgical interventions showed superior results when compared to endoscopy in terms of complete long-term pain relief. The number of complications and length of hospitalization in both groups were similar.

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF GASTROPANEL® FOR ATROPHIC GASTRITIS IN BRAZILIAN SUBJECTS AND THE EFFECT OF PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that the combination of gastrin-17 (G-17), pepsinogens I and II (PGI and PGII), and anti-Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) antibodies (GastroPanel®, BIOHIT HealthCare, Helsinki, Finland) could serve as biomarkers of atrophic gastritis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ensure the diagnostic accuracy of GastroPanel® and evaluate the effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on these biomarkers.

METHODS

Dyspeptic patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled in the present study. Histological findings, which were the gold standard to stratify groups, were as follows: no atrophy (controls); antrum atrophy; corpus atrophy; multifocal atrophy; and neoplasia. G-17, PGI, PGII, and anti-H. pylori immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies were assayed using commercially available kits. The ratio of PGI/PGII was calculated.

RESULTS

Among 308 patients, 159 (51.6%) were PPI users. The overall prevalence of atrophy was 43.8% (n=135). Ninety-two (29.9%) patients were H. pylori positive according to anti-H. pylori IgG levels. G-17 levels were not low in those with antrum atrophy but were high in those with corpus and multifocal atrophies. PGI levels were significantly lower in those with corpus and multifocal atrophies. The sensitivity of PGI <30 µg/L to detect corpus atrophy was 50% (95% CI 27.8-72.1%), with a specificity of 93.2% (95% CI 84.3-97.5%), a positive likelihood ratio of 7.4 (95% CI 2.9-19.2), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8). A small number of subjects (n=6) exhibited moderate to intense atrophy (4%), among whom 66.7% exhibited decreased PGI levels. PPI significantly increased the levels of G-17 and PGI, except in those with corpus and multifocal atrophies, in whom PGI levels were not increased by PPIs.

CONCLUSION

GastroPanel® (Gastrin-17, PGI, and PGI/PGII ratio) did not demonstrate high sensitivity for detecting gastric atrophy.

Robotic endoscopy. A review of the literature

Purpose

To present new endoscopic robotic devices in the context of minimally invasive procedures with high precision and automation.

Methods

Review of the literature by December 2018 on robotic endoscopy.

Results

We present the studies and investments for robotic implementation and flexible endoscopy evolution. We divided them into forceps manipulation platforms, active endoscopy and endoscopic capsule. They try to improve forceps handling and stability and to promote active movement.

Conclusion

The implementation and propagation of robotic models depend on doing what the endoscopist is unable to. The new devices are moving forward in this direction.

Metallic vs plastic stents to treat biliary stricture after liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized trials

Background and study aims  The first-line approach to anastomotic biliary stricture after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLTX) involves endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most widely used technique is placement of multiple plastic stents, but discussions are ongoing on the benefits of fully-covered self-expandable metallic stents (FCEMS) in this situation. This study aimed to compare results from use of plastic and metal stents to treat biliary stricture after transplantation. Patients and methods  Searches were performed in the Medline, EMBASE, SciELO/LILACS, and Cochrane databases, and only randomized studies comparing the two techniques were included in the meta-analysis. Results  Our study included four randomized clinical trials totaling 205 patients. No difference was observed between the stricture resolution rate (RD: 0.01; 95 %CI [-0.08 - 0.10]), stricture recurrence (RD: 0.13; 95 %CI [-0.03 - 0.28]), and adverse events (RD: -0.10; 95 %CI [-0.65 - 0.44]) between the plastic and metallic stent groups. The metallic stent group demonstrated benefits in relation to the number of ERCPs performed (MD: -1.86; 95 %CI [-3.12 to -0.6]), duration of treatment (MD: -105.07; 95 %CI [-202.38 to -7.76 days]), number of stents used (MD: -10.633; 95 %CI [-20.82 to -0.44]), and cost (average $ 8,288.50 versus $ 18,580.00, P  < 0.001). Conclusions  Rates of resolution and recurrence of stricture are similar, whereas the number of ERCPs performed, number of stents used, duration of treatment, and costs were lower in patients treated with FCEMS, which shows that this device is a valid option for initial treatment of post-OLTX biliary stricture.

Colonic stent versus emergency surgery as treatment of malignant colonic obstruction in the palliative setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Malignant colonic obstruction (MCO) due to CRC occurs in 8 % to 29 % of patients.The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing colonic SEMS versus emergency surgery (ES) for MCO in palliative patients. This was the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials in the palliative setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA method using online databases with no restriction regarding idiom or year of publication. Data were extracted by two authors according to a predefined data extraction form. Primary outcomes were: mean survival, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality and length of hospital stay. Stoma formation, length of stay on intensive care unit (ICU), technical success and clinical success were recorded for secondary outcomes. Technical success (TS) was defined as successful stent placement across the stricture and its deployment. Clinical success (CS) was defined as adequate bowel decompression within 48 h of stent insertion without need for re-intervention.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from four RCT studies totaling 125 patients. The 30-day mortality was 6.3 % for SEMS-treated patients and 6.4 % for ES-treated patients, with no difference between groups (RD: - 0.00, 95 % CI [-0.10, 0.10], I 2 : 0 %). Mean survival was 279 days for SEMS and 244 days for ES, with no significant difference between groups (RD: 20.14, 95 % CI: [-42.92, 83.21], I 2 : 44 %). Clinical success was 96 % in the ES group and 86.1 % in the SEMS group (RD: - 0.13, 95 % CI [-0.23, - 0.02], I 2 : 51 %). Permanent stoma rate was 84 % in the ES group and 14.3 % in the SEMS group (RR: 0.19, 95 % CI: [0.11, 0.33], I 2 : 28 %). Length of hospital stay was shorter in SEMS group (RD: - 5.16, 95 % CI: [-6.71, - 3.61], I 2 : 56 %). There was no significant difference between groups regarding adverse events (RD 0.18, 95 % CI: [-0.19, 0.54;]) neither regarding ICU stay. (RD: - 0.01, 95 % CI: [-0.08, 0.05], I 2 : 7 %). The most common stent-related complication was perforation (42.8 % of all AE).

CONCLUSION

Mortality, mean survival, length of stay in the ICU and early complications of both methods were similar. SEMS may be an alternative to surgery with the advantage of early hospital discharge and lower risk of permanent stoma.

Erratum: Colonic stent versus emergency surgery as treatment of malignant colonic obstruction in the palliative setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-0591-2883.].