Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances.

BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for adults with swallowing disturbances.

BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG as compared to NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances, by updating our previous Cochrane review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to September 2011, as well as contacting main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors performed selection, data extraction and evaluation of methodological quality of studies. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised controlled studies. We did not identify new eligible studies published after our previous review literature search date (August 2009). Intervention failure occurred in 19/156 patients in the PEG group and 63/158 patients in the NGT group (RR 0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.01) in favour of PEG. There was no statistically significant difference between comparison groups in complications (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P = 0.93). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.

Accuracy of preoperative biopsies compared with surgical specimens in the diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Since the first data from a patient with colorectal adenocarcinoma are obtained by biopsy, this study evaluated the accuracy of diagnosis by biopsy as compared with the diagnostic potential of the surgical specimen, considering the histological type, grade of differentiation, and immunohistochemical expression of p53. METHODS: The specimens were obtained from 80 patients assisted at Hospital São Paulo. The biopsy and surgical specimen sections were stained by hematoxylin-eosin and immunohistochemistry and compared by 3 pathologists blinded to the evaluations. RESULTS: The accuracy for the histological types was 88%. The grade of differentiation presented an accuracy of 70% with Kappa = .48. The expression of protein p53 exhibited an accuracy of 68% with Kappa = .22. CONCLUSION: The preoperative biopsy of colorectal adenocarcinoma presented good accuracy compared with histopathological examination of the surgical specimen, but with weak to moderate effective degree of agreement between the results.

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.

Treatment of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, neuroendocrine and periampullary pancreatic tumors using robotic surgery: a safe and feasible technique.

In the last few years, robotic surgery has started to take its place in pancreatic surgery. Robotic surgery provides advantages such as enhanced visualisation and freedom of dissection within a confined space and also allows economical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and short-term outcome of the robotic approach using the da Vinci robotic system in pancreatic/peripancreatic tumors other than pancreatic carcinomas. Fifteen patients with eight intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, four pancreatic neuroendocrine and three periampulary tumors were included in this initial series. Seven left pancreatectomies, five pancreatoduodenectomies and two total pancreatectomies were performed at Albert Einstein Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil. The mean operating room time for all the procedures was 503 min (315-775 min). Blood transfusion was necessary in one patient (3 units). The mean length of stay for all patients was 16 days (5-52 days). Large series of robotic pancreatic surgery should be described and the decision as to its routine use will come from cumulative experience. This surgical system allows difficult procedures to be performed more easily, effectively and precisely.