Pain relief in chronic pancreatitis: endoscopic or surgical treatment? a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pain is one of the consequences of chronic pancreatitis (CP) that has the greatest impact on the quality of life of patients. Endoscopic and surgical interventions, by producing a decrease in intraductal pancreatic pressure, can provide pain relief. This is the first systematic review that includes only randomized clinical trials (RTCs) comparing outcomes in the short-term (less than 2 years) and long-term (more than 2 years) between these two types of interventions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify RTCs comparing short and long-term pain relief, procedural complications, and days of hospitalization between endoscopic and surgical interventions was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Three RCTs evaluating a total of 199 patients (99 in the endoscopy group and 100 in the surgery group) were included in this study. Surgical interventions provided complete pain relief, with statistical difference, in the long-term (16,4% vs 35.7%; RD 0.19; 95% CI 0.03-0.35; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), without significant difference in short-term (17.5% vs 31.2%; RD 0.14; 95% CI -0.01-0.28; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%) when compared to endoscopy. There was no statistical difference in short-term (17.5% vs 28.1%; RD 0.11; 95% CI -0.04-0.25; p = 0.15; I2 = 0%) and long-term (34% vs 41.1%; RD 0.07; 95% CI -0.10-0.24; p = 0.42; I2 0%) in partial relief of pain between both interventions. In the short-term, both complications (34.9% vs 29.7%; RD 0.05; 95% CI -0.10-0.21; p = 0.50; I2 = 48%) and days of hospitalization (MD -1.02; 95% CI -2.61-0.58; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%) showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Surgical interventions showed superior results when compared to endoscopy in terms of complete long-term pain relief. The number of complications and length of hospitalization in both groups were similar.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stent placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life, thereby necessitating effective and safe palliative treatment. As such, we sought to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) versus duodenal stent (DS) placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) for palliation of malignant GOO. METHODS: Searches of electronic databases were performed to identify studies comparing EUS-GE versus DS and/or SGJ for palliative treatment of GOO. Outcomes included technical and clinical success, severe adverse events (SAEs), rate of stent obstruction (including tumor ingrowth), length of hospital stay (LOS), reintervention, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Differences in dichotomous and continuous outcomes were reported as risk difference and mean difference, respectively. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 513 patients) were included. When compared to DS placement, EUS-GE was associated with a higher clinical success, fewer SAEs, decreased stent obstruction, lower rate of tumor ingrowth, and decreased need for reintervention. Compared to SGJ, EUS-GE was associated with a lower technical success; however, LOS was significantly decreased. All other outcomes including clinical success, SAEs, reintervention rate, and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between an EUS-guided versus surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to DS placement for palliative treatment of malignant GOO. Despite SGJ possessing a higher technical success compared to EUS-GE, LOS was significantly longer with no difference in clinical success or rate of adverse events.

Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims While endoscopic-guided placement (EGP) of a post-pyloric nasoenteral feeding tube may improve caloric intake and reduce the risk of bronchoaspiration, an electromagnetic-guided placement (EMGP) method may obviate the need for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of EMGP versus EGP of a post-pyloric feeding tube. Methods Protocolized searches were performed from the inception through January 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included comparing EMGP versus EGP. Study outcomes included: technical success (defined as appropriate post-pyloric positioning), tube and patient associated adverse events (AEs), time to enteral nutrition, procedure-associated cost, and procedure time. Pooled risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using a fixed-effects model and heterogeneity evaluated using Higgins test (I 2 ). Results Four randomized trials (n = 536) were included. A total of 287 patients were included in the EMGP group and 249 patients in the EGP group. There was no difference between EMGP versus EGP regarding technical success, tube-related AEs, patient-related AEs, procedure time, and time in the right position. Time to enteral nutrition favored EMGP (MD: -134.37 [-162.13, -106.61]; I 2  = 35 %); with significantly decreased associated cost (MD: -127.77 ($) [-135.8-119.73]; I 2  = 0 %). Conclusions Based on this study, EMGP and EGP were associated with similar levels of technical success and safety as well as time to complete the procedure. Despite this, EMGP was associated with reduced cost and time to initiation of nutrition.