BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to palliating patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ). More recently endoscopic stenting (ES) and laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ) have been introduced as alternatives, and some studies have suggested improved outcomes with ES. The aim of this review is to compare ES with OGJ and LGJ in terms of clinical outcome. METHOD: A systematic literature search and review was performed for the period January 1990 to May 2008. Original comparative studies were included where ES was compared with either LGJ or OGJ or both, for the palliation of malignant GOO. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (10 retrospective cohort studies, two randomised controlled trials and one prospective study). Compared with OGJ, ES resulted in an increased likelihood of tolerating an oral intake [odds ratio (OR) 2.6, p = 0.02], a shorter time to tolerating an oral intake (mean difference 6.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter post-procedural hospital stay (mean difference 11.8 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between 30-day mortality, complication rates or survival. There were an inadequate number of cases to quantitatively compare ES with LGJ. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates improved clinical outcomes with ES over OGJ for patients with malignant GOO. However, there is insufficient data to adequately compare ES with LGJ, which is the current standard for operative management. As these conclusions are based on observational studies only, future large well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be required to ensure the estimates of the relative efficacy of these interventions are valid.
BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to palliating patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ). More recently endoscopic stenting (ES) and laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ) have been introduced as alternatives, and some studies have suggested improved outcomes with ES. The aim of this review is to compare ES with OGJ and LGJ in terms of clinical outcome. METHOD: A systematic literature search and review was performed for the period January 1990 to May 2008. Original comparative studies were included where ES was compared with either LGJ or OGJ or both, for the palliation of malignant GOO. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (10 retrospective cohort studies, two randomised controlled trials and one prospective study). Compared with OGJ, ES resulted in an increased likelihood of tolerating an oral intake [odds ratio (OR) 2.6, p = 0.02], a shorter time to tolerating an oral intake (mean difference 6.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter post-procedural hospital stay (mean difference 11.8 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between 30-day mortality, complication rates or survival. There were an inadequate number of cases to quantitatively compare ES with LGJ. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates improved clinical outcomes with ES over OGJ for patients with malignant GOO. However, there is insufficient data to adequately compare ES with LGJ, which is the current standard for operative management. As these conclusions are based on observational studies only, future large well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be required to ensure the estimates of the relative efficacy of these interventions are valid.
Authors: Tae Jun Song; Dong Wan Seo; Su Hui Kim; Do Hyun Park; Sang Soo Lee; Sung Koo Lee; Myung-Hwan Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Seung Han Kim; Hoon Jai Chun; In Kyung Yoo; Jae Min Lee; Seung Joo Nam; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yeon Seok Seo; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hong Sik Lee; Soon Ho Um; Chang Duck Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Alisa N Blumenthaler; Naruhiko Ikoma; Mariela Blum; Prajnan Das; Bruce D Minsky; Paul F Mansfield; Jaffer A Ajani; Brian D Badgwell Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.454