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.

Fecal microbiota transplantation improves metabolic syndrome parameters: systematic review with meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials.

Obesity and metabolic syndrome are important health problems that can lead to significant morbidity/mortality as well as subsequent health concerns. Alterations in the gut microbiota have been implicated in both obesity and metabolic syndrome. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a new promising therapeutic approach aimed at manipulating the gut microbiota in various chronic diseases. Randomized clinical trials assessing the use of FMT in obese and metabolic syndrome patients have been reported. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis using randomized clinical trials (RCT) is to evaluate the role of FMT for the treatment of obesity and metabolic syndrome and its impact on clinically relevant parameters. We searched the main databases, as well as the gray literature, to identify RCTs comparing FMT from lean donor(s) vs placebo for obese/metabolic syndrome patients. We included all studies that utilized any form of placebo (sham, saline, autologous FMT, or placebo capsules). Six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for final analysis with a total of 154 patients. We looked for clinically significant parameters related to obesity and metabolic syndrome and organized the findings into early (2-6 weeks after intervention) and late (12 weeks after intervention) outcomes. Two to 6 weeks after intervention, mean HbA1c was lower in the FMT group (MD = -1.69 mmol/L, CI [-2.88, -0.56], P = .003) and mean HDL cholesterol was higher in the FMT group (MD = 0.09 mmol/L, CI [0.02, 0.15], P = .008). There was no difference in obesity parameters 6 to 12 weeks after intervention. No serious adverse events were reported. The findings for this meta-analysis show that FMT may have a role for the treatment of metabolic syndrome, but there is currently not enough evidence to support its use in clinical practice. High-quality well-powered RCTS with longer follow-up are necessary to clarify the role of FMT in this patient cohort.

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews comparing stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis that are available in the medical literature have not shown either technique to be superior. An update of this systematic review was performed to find out if there are any data that properly answer this question. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. The following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications. SEARCH METHODS: A computerized search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE according to the strategies of the Colorectal Cancer Group of The Cochrane Collaboration. There were no limits upon language, date or other criteria. A revised search strategy was performed for this updated version of the review May 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis techniques were compared. Participants were adult patients undergoing elective colorectal anastomosis surgery. The interventions were endoluminal circular stapler and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. Outcomes considered were a) mortality; b) overall anastomotic dehiscence; c) clinical anastomotic dehiscence; d) radiological anastomotic dehiscence; e) stricture; f) anastomotic haemorrhage; g) reoperation; h) wound infection; i) anastomosis duration; and j) hospital stay. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently analysed by the two review authors (CBN, SASL) and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two authors. After searching the literature for this update, no study was added to those in the previous version of this review. Details of randomizations (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done or not, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The analysis of the risk of bias was updated according to the software Review Manager 5.1. The results of each RCT were summarized on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by the characteristics of the participants, interventions and the outcomes. The RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectal anastomosis. The risk difference (RD) method (random-effects model) and number needed to treat (NNT) for dichotomous outcome measures and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using a funnel plot and the Chi(2) test. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1233 patients enrolled in nine identified trials, 622 were treated with staples and 611 with manual suture. The following main results were obtained. a) Mortality, result based on 901 patients: RD -0.6%, 95% CI -2.8% to +1.6%. b) Overall dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD 0.2%, 95% CI -5.0% to +5.3%. c) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD -1.4%, 95% CI -5.2 to +2.3%. d) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 825 patients: RD 1.2%, 95% CI -4.8% to +7.3%. e) Stricture, result based on 1042 patients: RD 4.6%, 95% CI 1.2% to 8.1%; NNT 17, 95% CI 12 to 31. f) Anastomotic haemorrhage, result based on 662 patients: RD 2.7%, 95% CI -0.1% to +5.5%. g) Reoperation, result based on 544 patients: RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.3% to 7.4%. h) Wound infection, result based on 567 patients: RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to +4.3%. i) Anastomosis duration, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD -7.6 minutes, 95% CI -12.9 to -2.2 minutes. j) Hospital stay, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD 2.0 days, 95% CI -3.27 to +7.2 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectal anastomosis surgery, regardless of the level of anastomosis. There were no randomised clinical trials comparing these two types of anastomosis in elective conditions in the last decade. The relevance of this research question has possibly lost its strength where elective surgery is concerned. However, in risk situations, such as emergency surgery, trauma and inflammatory bowel disease, new clinical trials are needed.