Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy for the Palliation of Gastric Outlet Obstruction (GOO): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Different Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is usually associated with a poor prognosis and a significant decrease in a patient's quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has emerged as a safe and effective palliation procedure for GOO in patients that are unfit for surgery. Without an exclusive gold-standard technique for EUS-GE, we aimed to compare the currently available ones in this systematic review and meta-analysis, the first on this subspecialty. METHODS: A comprehensive search from multiple electronic databases was performed. The search had a particular emphasis on the techniques used in performing EUS-GE. We identified all the studies in which EUS-GE was performed as palliation for GOO from its inception to the current date. The outcomes analyzed were the following: technical and clinical success, total and severe adverse events (AEs), procedure duration, and length of hospital stay (LOHS). RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 863 patients were the basis of this statistical analysis. Patients underwent the following techniques: direct gastroenterostomy (DGE) (n=718), balloon-assisted gastroenterostomy (BAGE) (n=27), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass (n=118). In comparison to balloon-assisted techniques, DGE had a lower rate of AEs, -0.121 (95% CI -0.191 to -0.051 p=0.001); and LOHS for the DGE group, -2.684 (95% CI -1.031 to -4.337 p=0.001). The other analyzed outcomes presented no statistically significant differences. On a sub-analysis, BAGE showed a lower rate of AEs than EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass, -0.196 (95% CI -0.061 to -0.331 p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE is a safe and effective procedure for palliating GOO. When correctly administered, any of the analyzed techniques may be used to palliate GOO with similar technical and clinical outcomes. DGE had significantly lower rates of AEs and LOHS, which can be inferred as a safer procedure. These results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited few studies that are available and accessible. Therefore, further well-designed, randomized clinical studies on the topic are warranted to compare the different techniques from more sources.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Directed Transgastric ERCP in Patients With Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a therapeutic procedure for skilled endoscopists that can be even more challenging in some situations, including patients' post-Roux-en-y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) surgery. There is still no consensus on whether laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) is the most appropriate, safe, and feasible approach in patients with this type of post-surgical anatomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine both approaches' feasibility, efficacy, and safety in this situation. We searched for electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and Central Cochrane) to identify studies comparing LA-ERCP versus EDGE. Outcomes measured included technical success, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, length of stay (LOS), and procedural time. Descriptive data related to the EDGE procedure was also extracted. The risk of bias and the quality of evidence of the enrolled studies were assessed. Five studies, totalizing 268 patients (176 LA-ERCP and 92 EDGE), were included. There was no statistical difference in technical success and AEs between groups; however, the LOS and procedural times were shorter for the EDGE group. High rates of fistula closure and no weight regain were observed in EDGE. Both methods are feasible and safe techniques to perform ERCP in patients with RYGB anatomy, with comparable technical success and adverse events rate. However, EDGE is associated with shorter LOS and procedural time.

Obesity Treatment with Botulinum Toxin-A Is Not Effective: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The effectiveness of gastric injections of botulinum toxin-A (BTA) as primary treatment for obesity is not well known since results in literature are discrepant. Hence, we aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data to assess the real effect of BTA therapy. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, SCOPUS, EBSCO, LILACS, and BVS. We considered eligible only randomized controlled trials enrolling obese patients comparing BTA versus saline injections. Our initial search identified 8811 records. Six studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. After critical appraisal, two articles were excluded and we meta-analyzed the remainder. The mean difference for absolute weight loss and BMI reduction were 0.12 [CI 95%, - 1.14, 1.38] and - 0.06 [95% CI, - 0.92, 0.81], respectively. Therefore, we concluded that treatment of obesity with BTA is not effective.

Treatment of ring slippage after gastric bypass: long-term results after endoscopic dilation with an achalasia balloon (with videos).

BACKGROUND: Silastic rings are used in gastric bypass procedures for the treatment of obesity, but ring slippage may lead to gastric pouch outlet stenosis (GPOS). Conventional management has been ring removal through abdominal surgery. OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel, safe, minimally invasive, endoscopic technique for the treatment of GPOS caused by ring slippage after gastric bypass. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Federal University of Pernambuco and São Paulo University. PATIENTS: This study involved 39 consecutive patients who were screened for inclusion. INTERVENTION: Endoscopic dilation with an achalasia balloon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success and safety of the procedure. RESULTS: Among the 39 patients, 35 underwent endoscopic dilation at the ring slippage site for the relief of GPOS. The 4 patients who did not undergo endoscopic dilation underwent surgical removal of the ring, based on the exclusion criteria. The endoscopic approach was successful in 1 to 4 sessions in 100% of cases with radioscopic control (n = 12). The duration of the procedures ranged from 5 to 30 minutes, and the average internment was 14.4 hours. Dilation promoted either rupture (65.7%) or stretching (34.3%) of the thread within the ring, thereby increasing the luminal diameter of the GPOS. Complications included self-limited upper digestive tract hemorrhage (n = 1) and asymptomatic ring erosion (n = 4). There were no recurrences of obstructive symptoms during the follow-up period (mean of 33.3 months). LIMITATIONS: This was not a randomized, comparison study, and the number of patients was relatively small. CONCLUSION: The technique described promotes the relief of GPOS with low overall morbidity and avoids abdominal reoperation for ring removal.