Sama Anvari1, Yung Lee1, Nivedh Patro1, Melissa Sam Soon1, Aristithes G Doumouras1,2, Dennis Hong3,4. 1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. Centre for Minimal Access Surgery (CMAS), St. Joseph's Healthcare, McMaster University, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. 3. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. dennishong70@gmail.com. 4. Centre for Minimal Access Surgery (CMAS), St. Joseph's Healthcare, McMaster University, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada. dennishong70@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy is challenging. Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) has been shown to be safe and efficacious for ERCP in these patients but attempts to synthesize existing data are limited. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DBE-ERCP in surgically altered anatomy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through March 2020 for studies that conducted DBE-ERCP in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Primary outcomes were enteroscopic, diagnostic, and procedural success rates of DBE-ERCP. Secondary outcomes were adverse events after DBE-ERCP. Random effects meta-analysis of proportions was performed when appropriate. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using the inconsistency (I2) statistic. RESULTS: 24 studies involving 1523 patients were included. The pooled enteroscopic, diagnostic, and procedural success rates of DBE-ERCP were 90% (95% confidence interval (CI), 84-94%), 94% (95% CI 88-98%), and 93% (95% CI 88-97%). Adverse events were reported in 4% (95% CI 3-6%) of cases. Subgroup analysis of short-scope DBE-ERCP (< 200 cm) and long-scope DBE-ERCP (200 cm) did not demonstrate substantial difference in outcomes. CONCLUSION: DBE is safe and efficacious for facilitating ERCP in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy, but RCTs or comparative studies are required to clarify its role compared to other modalities in surgically altered anatomy.
BACKGROUND: Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy is challenging. Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) has been shown to be safe and efficacious for ERCP in these patients but attempts to synthesize existing data are limited. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DBE-ERCP in surgically altered anatomy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through March 2020 for studies that conducted DBE-ERCP in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Primary outcomes were enteroscopic, diagnostic, and procedural success rates of DBE-ERCP. Secondary outcomes were adverse events after DBE-ERCP. Random effects meta-analysis of proportions was performed when appropriate. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using the inconsistency (I2) statistic. RESULTS: 24 studies involving 1523 patients were included. The pooled enteroscopic, diagnostic, and procedural success rates of DBE-ERCP were 90% (95% confidence interval (CI), 84-94%), 94% (95% CI 88-98%), and 93% (95% CI 88-97%). Adverse events were reported in 4% (95% CI 3-6%) of cases. Subgroup analysis of short-scope DBE-ERCP (< 200 cm) and long-scope DBE-ERCP (200 cm) did not demonstrate substantial difference in outcomes. CONCLUSION: DBE is safe and efficacious for facilitating ERCP in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy, but RCTs or comparative studies are required to clarify its role compared to other modalities in surgically altered anatomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cholangiopancreatography; Double-balloon enteroscopy; Endoscopic retrograde; Endoscopy; Gastroenterology; General surgery
Authors: Sumant Inamdar; Eoin Slattery; Divyesh V Sejpal; Larry S Miller; Douglas K Pleskow; Tyler M Berzin; Arvind J Trindade Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Raj J Shah; Maximiliano Smolkin; Roy Yen; Andrew Ross; Richard A Kozarek; Douglas A Howell; Gennadiy Bakis; Sreenivasan S Jonnalagadda; Abed A Al-Lehibi; Al Hardy; Douglas R Morgan; Amrita Sethi; Peter D Stevens; Paul A Akerman; Shyam J Thakkar; Brian C Brauer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Isaac Samuel; Edward E Mason; Kathleen E Renquist; Yu-Hui Huang; M Bridget Zimmerman; Mohammad Jamal Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 2.565