Need for pancreatic stenting after sphincterotomy in patients with difficult cannulation

AIM: To investigate the need for pancreatic stenting after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in patients with difficult biliary cannulation.METHODS: Between April 2008 and August 2013, 2136 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related procedures. Among them, 55 patients with difficult biliary cannulation who underwent EST after bile duct cannulation using the pancreatic duct guidewire placement method (P-GW) were divided into two groups: a stent group (n = 24; pancreatic stent placed) and a no-stent group (n = 31; no pancreatic stenting). We retrospectively compared the two groups to examine the need for pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in patients undergoing EST after biliary cannulation by P-GW.RESULTS: No differences in patient characteristics or endoscopic procedures were observed between the two groups. The incidence of PEP was 4.2% (1/24) and 29.0% (9/31) in the Stent and no-stent groups, respectively, with the no-stent group having a significantly higher incidence (P = 0.031). The PEP severity was mild for all the patients in the stent group. In contrast, 8 had mild PEP and 1 had moderate PEP in the no-stent group. The mean serum amylase levels (means ± SD) 3 h after ERCP (183.1 ± 136.7 vs 463.6 ± 510.4 IU/L, P = 0.006) and on the day after ERCP (209.5 ± 208.7 vs 684.4 ± 759.3 IU/L, P = 0.002) were significantly higher in the no-stent group. A multivariate analysis identified the absence of pancreatic stenting (P = 0.045; odds ratio, 9.7; 95%CI: 1.1-90) as a significant risk factor for PEP.CONCLUSION: In patients with difficult cannulation in whom the bile duct is cannulated using P-GW, a pancreatic stent should be placed even if EST has been performed.     

Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A meta-analysis

AIM:To assess the effectiveness of pancreatic stents for preventing pancreatitis in high-risk patients after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP).METHODS:PubMed,Embase,Science Citation Index,and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify relevant trials published in English.Inclu-sion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for suitable studies.Two reviewers independently judged the study eligibility while screening the citations.The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Jadad scoring system.All results were expressed as OR and 95%CI.Data were analyzed using Stata12.0 software.RESULTS:Ten eligible randomized controlled trials were selected,including 1176 patients.A fixed-effects model in meta-analysis supported that pancreatic duct stents significantly decreased the incidence of postERCP pancreatitis(PEP)in high-risk patients(OR=0.25;95%CI:0.17-0.38;P<0.001).Pancreatic stents also alleviated the severity of PEP(mild pancreatitis after ERCP:OR=0.33;95%CI:0.21-0.54;P<0.001;moderate pancreatitis after ERCP:OR=0.30;95%CI:0.13-0.67;P=0.004).The result of severe pancreatitis after ERCP was handled more rigorously(OR=0.24;95%CI:0.05-1.16;P=0.077).Serum amylase levels were not different between patients with pancreatic stents and control patients(OR=1.08;95%CI:0.82-1.41;P=0.586).CONCLUSION:Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents may lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients and alleviate the severity of this condition.     

Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy

AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2012 comparing EPBD with EST for CBD stone removal were evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate short-term and long-term com-plications of these two treatments. The fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analysis the data. Results were obtained by analyz-ing the relative risk, odds ratio, and 95%CI for a given comparison using RevMan 5.1. Statistical significance was defined asP < 0.05. Risk of bias was evaluated us-ing a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of the 1975 patients analyzed, 980 of them were treated with EPBD and 995 were treated with EST. Of the patient population, patients in the EPBDgroup were younger (OR=-1.16, 95%CI:-1.49 to 0.84, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the incidence of duodenal diverticulum, CBD diameter or the total follow-up time between EST and EPBD groups. Com-pared with EST, the total stone clearance in the EPBD group decreased (OR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.42 to 0.96,P=0.03), the use of stone extraction baskets significantly increased (OR=1.91, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.59, P<0.01), and the incidence of pancreatitis significantly increased (OR=2.79, 95%CI: 1.74 to 4.45, P<0.0001). The incidence of bleeding (OR=0.12, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P<0.01) and cholecystitis (OR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.84, P=0.02) significantly decreased. The stone re-currence rate also was significantly reduced in EPBD (OR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P=0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups with the incidence of stone removal at first attempt, hours of operation, total short-term complications and infection, perforation, or acute cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pancreatitis was higher, the overall stone     

Early precut sphincterotomy and the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related complications: An updated meta-analysis

AIM: To study the cannulation and complication rates of early pre-cut sphincterotomy vs persistent attempts at cannulation by standard approach.METHODS: Systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published up to February 2013. The main outcome measurements were cannulation rates and postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) complications. A comprehensive systematic search of the Cochrane library, PubMed, Google scholar, Scopus, National Institutes of Health, meta-register of controlled trials and published proceedings from major Gastroenterology journals and meetings until February 2013 was conducted using keywords. All Prospective randomized controlled trials(RCT) studies whichmet our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Prospective non-randomized studies and retrospective studies were excluded from our meta-analysis. The main outcomes of interest were post-ERCP pancreatitis, overall complication rates including cholangitis, ERCPrelated bleeding, perforation and cannulation success rates. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with a total of 1039 patients were included in the meta-analysis based on selection criteria. The overall cannulation rate was 90% in the pre-cut sphincterotomy vs 86.3% in the persistent attempts group(OR = 1.98; 95%CI: 0.70-5.65). The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP) was not different between the two groups(3.9% in the pre-cut sphincterotomy vs 6.1% in the persistent attempts group, OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.32-1.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for overall complication rate including PEP, cholangitis, bleeding, and perforation(6.2% vs 6.9%, OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.51-1.41). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that precut sphincterotomy and persistent attempts at cannulation are comparable in terms of overall complication rates. Early pre-cut implementation does not increase PEP complications.     

Inutility of endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent pancreatitis after biliary metal stent placement in the patients without pancreatic duct obstruction

Abstract

Background: The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been reported to be significantly higher in patients without main pancreatic duct (MPD) obstruction who undergo transpapillary biliary metal stent (MS) placement than in those with ordinary ERCP setting.

Objective: To evaluate the benefit of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to MS placement in preventing PEP in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) without MPD obstruction.

Materials and methods: In total, 160 patients who underwent initial MS placement for MBO were enrolled. Eighty-two patients underwent ES immediately prior to MS placement, whereas 78 underwent MS placement without ES. An inverse probability of treatment weighting method was adopted to adjust the differences of the patients’ characteristics. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of other adverse events (bleeding, cholangitis, perforation and stent dislocation) and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.

Results: The incidence of PEP was 26.8% in the ES and 23.1% in the non-ES (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] [95%CI]: 1.22, [0.60–2.51], adjusted OR [95%CI]: 1.23, [0.53–2.81], p?=?.63). Logistic-regression analysis revealed no factors that could be attributed to the occurrence of PEP. The incidence of other adverse events was not different between the groups. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 131 (2–465) days and 200 (4–864) days in the ES and non-ES, respectively (p?=?.215).

Conclusions: ES prior to MS placement for patients with distal MBO without MPD obstruction does not reduce the incidence of PEP.     

Effect of precut sphincterotomy on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis:A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM:To conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis to investigate the role of early precut technique.Multiple randomized controlled trails(RCTs)have reported conflicting results of the early precut sphincterotomy.METHODS:MEDLINE/PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews,and recent abstracts from major conference proceedings were searched(June 2013).Randomized and non-randomized studies comparing early precut technique with prolonged standard methods were included.Pooled estimates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)pancreatitis(PEP),cannulation and adverse events were analyzed by using odds ratio(OR).Random and fixed effects models were used as appropriate.Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by calculating I2 measure of inconsistency.RESULTS:Seven randomized and seven non-randomized trials met inclusion criteria.Meta-analysis of RCTs showed a decrease trend for PEP with early precut sphincterotomy but was not statistically significant(OR=0.58;95%CI:0.32-1.05;P=0.07).No heterogeneity was noted among the studies with I2 of 0%.CONCLUSION:Early precut technique for common bile duct cannulation decreases the trend of post-ERCP pancreatitis.     

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

Background and aim

Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications. Previous meta-analyses show that prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement after ERCP is beneficial for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results of these meta-analyses are controversial due to the limited sample size of the eligible studies, in which six additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not included. Our aim is, therefore, to update the current meta-analyses regarding PS placement for prevention of PEP.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis to identify RCTs comparing PS placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP.

Results

Fourteen studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Of the 1,541 patients, 760 patients received a PS and 781 patients were allocated to the control group. PS placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction of PEP [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.29–0.53; P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis stratified according to the severity of PEP showed that a PS was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.32–0.62; P < 0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.26; 95 %CI 0.09–0.76; P = 0.01). In addition, subgroup analysis performed according to patient selection demonstrated that PS placement was effective for both high-risk and mixed case groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that PS placement prevented PEP after ERCP as compared with no PS placement. We therefore recommend PS placement after ERCP for the prevention of PEP.     

十二指肠乳头括约肌切开后球囊扩张术和乳头括约肌切开术治疗巨大胆总管结石效果比较的Meta分析

目的评价两种手术方式十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术(EST)和十二指肠乳头括约肌切开后球囊扩张术(ESBD)处理巨大胆总管结石的疗效差异。方法计算机检索至2019年7月8日的Pubmed、Cochrane Central、Embase等外文数据库及中国知网、万方等中文数据库中的文献,同时检索相关会议论文等,纳入ESBD vs EST治疗巨大胆总管结石的随机对照试验(RCT),提取相关数据,采用RevMan5.3软件进行分析。结果共纳入13项RCT,共计1926例患者,其中ESBD组973例,EST组953例。Meta分析结果显示:ESBD组和EST组结石清除率[比值比(OR)=1.53,95%可信区间(95%CI):1.03~2.29,P=0.04]、一次清除率(OR=1.77,95%CI:1.06~2.93,P=0.03)、机械碎石率(OR=0.40,95%CI:0.25~0.63,P<0.0001)、出血率(OR=0.23,95%CI:0.11~0.50,P<0.001)、胆管炎发生率(OR=0.31,95%CI:0.12~0.78,P=0.01)、早期并发症(OR=0.59,95%CI:0.42~0.84,P=0.003)、手术时间(MD=-8.89,95%CI:-17.56^-0.22,P=0.04)比较,差异均有统计学意义;但在穿孔(OR=0.27,95%CI:0.05~1.30,P=0.10)、内镜后胰腺炎(OR=1.03,95%CI:0.66~1.61,P=0.91)方面二者结果相似。结论在内镜下处理巨大胆总管结石中,ESBD在结石清除率、机械碎石率、出血率、胆管炎发生率、手术时间方面比EST更有优势。     

Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety profile of pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).METHODS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials of prophylactic PD stent placement after ERCP. RevMan 5 software provided by Cochrane was used for the heterogeneity and efficacy analyses, and a meta-analysis was performed for the data that showed homogeneity. Categorical data are presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and measurement data are presented as weighted mean differences and 95%CIs.RESULTS: The incidence rates of severe pancreatitis, operation failure, complications and patient pain severity were analyzed. Data on pancreatitis incidence were reported in 14 of 15 trials. There was no significant heterogeneity between the trials (I² = 0%, P = 0.93). In the stent group, 49 of the 1233 patients suffered from PEP, compared to 133 of the 1277 patients in the no-stent group. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that it may be possible to prevent PEP by placing a PD stent.CONCLUSION: PD stent placement can reduce postoperative hyperamylasemia and might be an effective and safe option to prevent PEP if the operation indications are well controlled.     

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis:A meta-analysis

AIM:To perform a meta-analysis of large-balloon dilation(LBD)plus endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST)vs EST alone for removal of bile duct stones.METHODS:Databases including PubMed,EMBASE,the Cochrane Library,the Science Citation Index,and important meeting abstracts were searched and evaluated by two reviewers independently.The main outcome measures included:complete stone removal,stone removal in the first session,use of mechanical lithotripsy,procedure time,and procedure-related complications.A fixed-effects model weighted by the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for pooling the odds ratio(OR)when heterogeneity was not significant among the studies.When a Q test or I2statistic indicated substantial heterogeneity,a random-effects model weighted by the DerSimonian-Laird method was used.RESULTS:Six randomized controlled trials involving835 patients were analyzed.There was no significant heterogeneity for most results;we analyzed these using a fixed-effects model.Meta-analysis showed EST plus LBD caused fewer overall complications than EST alone(OR=0.53,95%CI:0.33-0.85,P=0.008);sub-category analysis indicated a significantly lower risk of perforation in the EST plus LBD group(Peto OR=0.14,95%CI:0.20-0.98,P=0.05).Use of mechanical lithotripsy in the EST plus LBD group decreased significantly(OR=0.26,95%CI:0.08-0.82,P=0.02),especially in patients with a stone size larger than 15 mm(OR=0.15,95%CI:0.03-0.68,P=0.01).There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding complete stone removal,stone removal in the first session,post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis,bleeding,infection of biliary tract,and procedure time.CONCLUSION:EST plus LBD is an effective approach for the removal of large bile duct stones,causing fewer complications than EST alone.     

Efficacy and safety of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy before self-expandable metal stent insertion for malignant biliary obstruction

AIM To evaluate the safety and efficacy of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before placement of selfexpandable metal stent(SEMS).METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of 244 consecutive patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction, who underwent placement of SEMSs following limited ES from December 2008 to February 2015. The diagnosis of malignant biliary obstruction and assessment of patient eligibility for the study was established by a combination of clinical findings, laboratory investigations, imaging and pathological results. All patients were monitored in the hospital for at least 24 h following endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography(ERCP). The incidence of immediate or early post-ERCP complications such as post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP) and bleeding related to limited ES were considered as primary outcomes. Also, characteristics and complications according to the cancer type were classified.RESULTS Among the 244 patients included, the underlying diagnosis was cholangiocarcinoma in 118 patients,pancreatic cancer in 79, and non-pancreatic or nonbiliary malignancies in the remaining 47 patients. Early post-ERCP complications occurred in 9 patients(3.7%), with PEP in 7 patients (2.9%; mild, 6; moderate, 1) and mild bleeding in 2 patients (0.8%). There was no significant association between the incidence of post-ERCP complications and the type of malignancy(cholangiocarcinoma vs pancreatic cancer vs others, P = 0.696) or the type of SEMS used (uncovered vs covered, P = 1.000). Patients who had more than one SEMS placed at the first instance were at a significantly higher risk of post-ERCP complications (one SEMS vs two SEMS, P = 0.031). No other factors were predictive of post-ERCP complications.CONCLUSION Limited ES is feasible and safe, and effectively facilitates the placement of SEMS, without any significant risk of PEP or severe bleeding.     

Peri-Procedural Aggressive Hydration for Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis Prophylaxsis: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundPeriprocedural intravenous hydration is suggested to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, quality of evidence supporting this suggestion remains poor. Here we hypothesized that aggressive hydration(AH) could be an effective preventive measure.MethodsPubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials. gov, Clinical Key, International Standard Randomized Trial Number registry as well as secondary sources were searched through January 2019 to identify randomized controlled studies comparing AH to standard hydration (SH) for prevention of PEP. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. RevMan 5.3 was used for analysis.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs, with 2094 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. AH reduced incidence of PEP by 56% compared to SH (OR = 0.44, CI:0.28–0.69; p = 0.0004). The incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia also decreased with AH compared to SH (OR = 0.51; p = 0.001). Length of stay decreased by 1 day with AH (Mean Difference (MD): −0.89 d; p = 0.00002). There was no significant difference in adverse events related to fluid overload between two groups (OR:1.29; p = 0.81) and post-ERCP abdominal pain (OR:0.35; p = 0.17). Numbers of patient to be treated with AH to prevent one episode of PEP was 17. Final results of the meta-analysis were not affected by alternative effect measures or statistical models of heterogeneity.ConclusionAggressive hydration is associated with a significantly lower incidence of PEP and it appears to be an effective and safe strategy for the prevention of Post ERCP pancreatitis.     

Is endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation really a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis?

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is generally avoided in Western countries because of a relatively high reported incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP). However, as the efficacy of endoscopic papillary largeballoon dilatation(EPLBD) becomes widely recognized, EPBD is attracting attention. Here we investigate whether EPBD is truly a risk factor for PEP, and seek safer and more effective EPBD procedures by reviewing past studies. We reviewed thirteen randomised control trials comparing EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) and ten studies comparing direct EPLBD and EST. Three randomized controlled trials of EPBD showed significantly higher incidence of PEP than EST, but no study of EPLBD did. Careful analysis of these studies suggested that longer and higher-pressure inflation of balloons might decrease PEP incidence. The paradoxical result that EPBD with small-calibre balloons increases PEP incidence while EPLBD does not may be due to insufficient papillary dilatation in the former. Insufficient dilatation could cause the high incidence of PEP through the use of mechanical lithotripsy and stress on the papilla at the time of stone removal. Sufficient dilation of the papilla may be useful in preventing PEP.     

Efficacy and safety of standard and anti-reflux self-expanding metal stent: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND Self-expanding metal stents are the main palliative treatment modality for unresectable esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux is a common adverse outcome after placement of esophageal stent for cancer involving the gastroesophageal junction and the gastric cardia. Anti-reflux stents with valve have been designed to prevent the acid reflux. The superiority of anti-reflux stent over standard stent in preventing gastroesophageal reflux has not been established well. This study compares the anti-reflux stent and the standard stent in terms of their efficacy to prevent acid reflux.AIM To compare the standard and the anti-reflux stents in terms of their efficacy,safety, and complications.METHODS The meta-analysis included 8 randomized clinical trials(RCTs) to compare pooled outcomes of total 395 patients. Primary outcomes include improvement in reflux symptoms and dysphagia score. Secondary outcomes include complications of stent migration, occlusion, and bleeding.RESULTS A total of eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard stent, the anti-reflux stent showed a trend towards reduction in the dysphagia score without reaching a statistical significance [Standardized mean difference(SMD):-0.33(-0.71, 0.05); P = 0.09, I2: 37%]. There was no statistical difference in the gastrointestinal reflux(GER) scores between the two types of stents [SMD:-0.17(-0.78, 0.45); P = 0.008, I2: 74%]. Compared to standard stent,anti-reflux stent showed no difference in the risk of stent migration [OR: 1.37(0.66, 2.83); P = 0.40, I2: 0 %], bleeding [OR: 1.43(0.40, 5.13); P = 0.59, I2: 0 %], and obstruction [OR: 1.66(0.60, 4.60); P = 0.33, I2: 0 %].CONCLUSION Traditional self-expanding standard esophageal stent and anti-reflux stent with valve are similar in terms of outcomes and complications.     

Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Impaired drainage of the pancreatic duct is one of the possible triggers for post-ERCP acute pancreatitis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether temporary stent placement across the main pancreatic-duct orifice lowers the frequency of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in patients at high risk for this complication. METHODS: Two reviewers systematically identified prospective studies that (1) compared the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic stent placement vs. no stent placement and (2) included patients at high risk of developing this complication. Studies were assessed for methodologic quality and variations in execution and design. Frequency and severity of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis were the primary outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: Five trials involving 481 patients were selected. Of the 481, 55 (11.4%) patients developed pancreatitis after ERCP. Patients in the no stent group had 3-fold higher odds of developing pancreatitis compared with the stent group (15.5% vs. 5.8%; OR 3.2: 95% CI[1.6, 6.4]). Number needed to treat analysis showed that one in every 10 patients (95% CI[6,18]) could be expected to benefit from pancreatic-duct stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic temporary stent placement across the main pancreatic-duct orifice reduces the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in patients at risk for developing this complication.     

Meta-analysis of stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy

AIM: To compare outcome of stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) vs LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy (LH) by a meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Science Citation Index updated to December 2012, were searched. The main outcomes measured were operating time, early postoperative pain, postoperative urinary retention and bleeding, wound problems, gas or fecal incontinence, anal stenosis, length of hospital stay, residual skin tags, prolapse, and recurrence. The meta-analysis was performed using the free software Review Manager. Differences observed between the two groups were expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI. A fixedeffects model was used to pool data when statistical heterogeneity was not present. If statistical heterogeneity was present (P < 0.05), a random-effects model was used. RESULTS: The initial search identified 10 publica-tions. After screening, five RCTs published as full articles were included in this meta-analysis. Among the five studies, all described a comparison of the patient baseline characteristics and showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Although most of the analyzed outcomes were similar between the two operative techniques, the operating time for SH was significantly longer than for LH (P < 0.00001; OR= -6.39, 95%CI: -7.68 -5.10). The incidence of residual skin tags and prolapse was significantly lower in the LH group than in the SH group [2/111 (1.8%) vs 16/105 (15.2%); P = 0.0004; OR= 0.17, 95%CI: 0.06-0.45). The incidence of recurrence after the procedures was significantly lower in the LH group than in the SH group [2/173 (1.2%) vs 13/174 (7.5%); P = 0.003; OR= 0.21, 95%CI: 0.07-0.59]. CONCLUSION: Both SH and LH are probably equally valuable techniques in modern hemorrhoid surgery. However, LigaSure might have slightly favorable immediate postoperative results and technical advantages.     

Ampulla dilation with different sized balloons to remove common bile duct stones

AIM:To assess the outcomes of ampulla dilation with different sized balloons to remove common bile duct (CBD) stones.METHODS:Patients (n=208) were divided into five groups based on the largest CBD stone size of < 5,6-8,8-12,12-14,and > 14 mm.Patients underwent limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone or limited EST followed by endoscopic papillary balloon dilation with 8,10,12 and 14 mm balloons,such that the size of each balloon did not exceed the size of the CBD.Short-and long-term outcomes,such as post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis,perforation,bleeding,and pneumobilia were compared among the five groups.RESULTS:The overall rate of successful stone removal in all groups was 100%,and all patients were cured.Eight (3.85%) patients had post-ERCP pancreatitis,none had perforations,and 6 (2.9%) had bleeding re-quiring transfusion.There were no significant differences in early complication rates among the five groups.We observed significant correlations between increased balloon size and the short-and long-term rates of postERCP pneumobilia.Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding correlated significantly with age,with post-ERCP pancreatitis occurring more frequently in patients aged < 60 years,and bleeding occurring more frequently in patients aged > 70 years.We observed a significant correlation between patient age and the diameter of the largest CBD stone,with stones > 12 mm occurring more frequently in patients > 60 years old.CONCLUSION:Choosing a balloon size based on the largest stone diameter is safe and effective for removing CBD stones.Balloon size should not exceed 15 mm.     

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones:A meta-analysis

AIM:To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)with endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST)in retrieval of common bile duct stones(≥10 mm).METHODS:PubMed,Web of Knowledge,EBSCO,the Cochrane Library,and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies.Randomized controlled trials(RCTs)that compared EPLBD with EST were identified.Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers using the same criteria.Any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer until a final consensus was reached.Pooled outcomes of complete bile duct stone clearance,stone clearance in one session,requirement for mechanical lithotripsy,and overall complication rate were determined using relative risk and 95%CI.The separate post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications were pooled and determined with the Peto odds ratio and95%CI because of the small number of events.Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test with P≤0.1 and I2 with a cutoff of≥50%.A fixed effects model was used primarily.A random effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was detected.Sensitivity analysis was applied to explore the potential bias.RESULTS:Five randomized controlled trials with 621participants were included.EPLBD compared with EST had similar outcomes with regard to complete stone removal rate(93.7%vs 92.5%,P=0.54)and complete duct clearance in one session(82.2%vs 77.7%,P=0.17).Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in EPLBD in the retrieval of whole stones(15.5%vs25.2%,P=0.003),as well as in the stratified subgroup of stones larger than 15 mm(24.2%vs 40%,P=0.001).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events(7.9%vs 10.7%,P=0.25),post-ERCP pancreatitis(4.0%vs 5.0%,P=0.54),hemorrhage(1.7%vs 2.8%,P=0.32),perforation(0.3%vs 0.9%,P=0.35)or acute cholangitis(1.3%vs 1.3%,P=0.92).CONCLUSION:EPLBD could be advocated as an alternative to EST in the retrieval of large common bile duct stones.     

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

AIM To compare gallstones removal rate and incidence of bleeding, pancreatitis, use of mechanical lithotripsy, cholangitis and perforation between isolated sphincterotomy vs sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation of papilla in choledocholithiasis through the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. METHODS We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature search was restricted to randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on Med Line, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EMBASE database platforms in July 2017. The manual search included references of retrieved articles. We extracted data focusing on outcomes: The primary endpoint was the stones removal rate; Secondary endpoints were rates of pancreatitis, bleeding, use of mechanical lithotripsy(ML), perforation and cholangitis. RESULTS Eleven RCTs with 1824 patients were included. EST was associated with more post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) bleeding [FE RD-0.02, CI(-0.03,-0.00), I2 = 33%, P = 0.05] and more need of mechanical lithotripsy in general [RE RD-0.16, CI(-0.25,-0.06), I2 = 90%, P = 0.002] and in subgroup analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [RE RD-0.20, CI(-0.38,-0.02), I2 = 82%, P = 0.003]. Incidence of pancreatitis [FE RD-0.01, CI(-0.03, 0.01), I2 = 0, P = 0.36], cholangitis [FE RD-0.00, CI(-0.01, 0.01), I2 =0, P = 0.97] and perforation [FE RD-0.01, CI(-0.01, 0.00), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] was similar between the groups as well as similar stone removal rates in general [FE RD-0.01, CI(-0.01, 0.04), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] and pooled analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [FE RD-0.02, CI(-0.02, 0.07), I2 = 11%, P = 0.31]. CONCLUSION Through meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials we found that isolated sphincterotomy was associated with more post-ERCP bleeding and more need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, there was no statistical difference in the stone removal rate between isolated sphincterotomy and sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation in the approach to remove gallstones.     

Proton pump inhibitors in prevention of low-dose aspirin-associated upper gastrointestinal injuries

AIM:To determine the preventive effect and safety of proton pump inhibitors(PPIs) in low-dose aspirin(LDA)-associated gastrointestinal(GI) ulcers and bleeding.METHODS:We searched MEDLINE,EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from inception to December 2013,and checked conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on the effect of PPIs in reducing adverse GI events(hemorrhage,ulcer,perforation,or obstruction) in patients taking LDA.The preventive effects of PPIs were compared with the control group [taking placebo,a cytoprotective agent,or an H2 receptor antagonist(H2RA)] in LDA-associated upper GI injuries.The meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.1 software.RESULTS:We evaluated 8780 participants in 10 RCTs.The meta-analysis showed that PPIs decreased the risk of LDA-associated upper GI ulcers(OR = 0.16;95%CI:0.12-0.23) and bleeding(OR = 0.27;95%CI:0.16-0.43) compared with control.For patients treated with dual anti-platelet therapy of LDA and clopidogrel,PPIs were able to prevent the LDA-associated GI bleeding(OR = 0.36;95%CI:0.15-0.87) without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events(MACE)(OR = 1.00;95%CI:0.76-1.31).PPIs were superior to H2 RA in prevention of LDA-associated GI ulcers(OR = 0.12;95%CI:0.02-0.65) and bleeding(OR = 0.32;95%CI:0.13-0.79).CONCLUSION:PPIs are effective in preventing LDAassociated upper GI ulcers and bleeding.Concomitant use of PPI,LDA and clopidogrel did not increase the risk of MACE.