Tae Young Park1, Chang Seok Bang2, Sang Hyeon Choi2, Young Joo Yang2, Suk Pyo Shin2, Ki Tae Suk2, Gwang Ho Baik2, Dong Joon Kim2, Jai Hoon Yoon3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, 9 Mareunnae-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul, South Korea. ptymd@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, South Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Gwangmyeong Sungae Hospital, Gwangmyeong, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The forward-viewing endoscope has been increasingly used to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who underwent Billroth II gastrectomy. This study intended to assess efficacy and safety of the forward-viewing endoscope for ERCP in Billroth II gastrectomy patients compared with conventional side-viewing endoscope using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for studies that evaluated the outcomes of ERCP for patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Random-effect model meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were conducted. The methodological quality of the included publications was evaluated using the risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies. The publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 25 studies (1 randomized, 18 retrospective, 1 prospective, and 5 case series studies) with 2446 patients (499 forward-viewing and 1947 side-viewing endoscopes) were analyzed. The pooled afferent loop intubation rate was higher with the forward-viewing endoscope (90.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 85.6-93.6 vs. 86.8%, 95% CI 82.8-89.9%). The pooled selective cannulation rate was higher with the side-viewing endoscope (92.3%, 95% CI 88.0-95.2 vs. 91.1%, 95% CI 87.2-93.9%). The pooled bowel perforation rate was higher with the side-viewing endoscope (3.6%, 95% CI 2.3-5.7 vs. 3.0%, 95% CI 1.7-5.3%). The pooled pancreatitis rate was higher with the forward-viewing endoscope (5.4%, 95% CI 3.6-8.0 vs. 2.5%, 95% CI 2.3-5.7%). The pooled bleeding rate was higher with the forward-viewing endoscope (3.0%, 95% CI 1.6-5.5 vs. 2.0%, 95% CI 1.4-3.0%). The heterogeneity among the studies was not significant. The publication bias was minimal. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the forward-viewing endoscope is as safe and effective as conventional side-viewing endoscope for ERCP in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy.
BACKGROUND: The forward-viewing endoscope has been increasingly used to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who underwent Billroth II gastrectomy. This study intended to assess efficacy and safety of the forward-viewing endoscope for ERCP in Billroth II gastrectomy patients compared with conventional side-viewing endoscope using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for studies that evaluated the outcomes of ERCP for patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Random-effect model meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were conducted. The methodological quality of the included publications was evaluated using the risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies. The publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 25 studies (1 randomized, 18 retrospective, 1 prospective, and 5 case series studies) with 2446 patients (499 forward-viewing and 1947 side-viewing endoscopes) were analyzed. The pooled afferent loop intubation rate was higher with the forward-viewing endoscope (90.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 85.6-93.6 vs. 86.8%, 95% CI 82.8-89.9%). The pooled selective cannulation rate was higher with the side-viewing endoscope (92.3%, 95% CI 88.0-95.2 vs. 91.1%, 95% CI 87.2-93.9%). The pooled bowel perforation rate was higher with the side-viewing endoscope (3.6%, 95% CI 2.3-5.7 vs. 3.0%, 95% CI 1.7-5.3%). The pooled pancreatitis rate was higher with the forward-viewing endoscope (5.4%, 95% CI 3.6-8.0 vs. 2.5%, 95% CI 2.3-5.7%). The pooled bleeding rate was higher with the forward-viewing endoscope (3.0%, 95% CI 1.6-5.5 vs. 2.0%, 95% CI 1.4-3.0%). The heterogeneity among the studies was not significant. The publication bias was minimal. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the forward-viewing endoscope is as safe and effective as conventional side-viewing endoscope for ERCP in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Billroth II operation; Duodenoscopes; Endoscopes; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Meta-analysis
Authors: James A Disario; Martin L Freeman; David J Bjorkman; Padraic Macmathuna; Bret T Petersen; Philip E Jaffe; Thomas G Morales; Lee J Hixson; Stuart Sherman; Glen A Lehman; M Mazen Jamal; Firas H Al-Kawas; Mukul Khandelwal; Joseph P Moore; Gregory A Derfus; Priya A Jamidar; Francisco C Ramirez; Michael E Ryan; Karen L Woods; David L Carr-Locke; Stephen C Alder Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jong Won Byun; Jae Woo Kim; Se Yong Sung; Ho Yeon Jung; Hyo Keun Jeon; Hong Jun Park; Moon Young Kim; Hyun Soo Kim; Soon Koo Baik Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2012-11-30
Authors: Ho Seok Ki; Chang Hwan Park; Chung Hwan Jun; Seon Young Park; Hyun Soo Kim; Sung Kyu Choi; Jong Sun Rew Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.628