Effectiveness of Capsule Endoscopy Compared with Other Diagnostic Modalities in Patients with Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: As a result of the rapid development of medical diagnostic tools, physicians require concrete evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and additional diagnostic benefits of capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as eight domestic databases. Two reviewers independently screened all references. Diagnostic data from the studies were collected, and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included. In cases of suspected CD, CE demonstrated a superior diagnostic yield compared with small bowel follow-through (SBFT) and enteroclysis (EC); however, there was no difference compared with computed tomography enterography or magnetic resonance enterography. In cases with established CD, CE demonstrated a higher diagnostic yield only compared with EC. In the detection of terminal ileum lesions, CE exhibited a significantly increased detection rate compared with ileoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our meta-analysis indicate that CE is superior to SBFT and EC in the evaluation of suspected CD cases. CE is also a more effective diagnostic modality in patients with established CD compared with EC.

Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: Reports from several case series have described the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery (RS) for colonic cancer. Experience is still limited in robotic colonic surgery, and a few meta-analysis has been conducted to integrate the results for colon cancer specifically. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence comparing the surgical safety and efficacy of RS with that of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer. METHODS: We searched English databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library), and Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi). Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio, and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). RESULTS: The present study found that the RS group had a shorter time to resumption of a regular diet (MD, -0.62 days; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.28), first passage of flatus (MD, -0.44 days; 95% CI, -0.66 to -0.23) and defecation (MD, -0.62 days; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.47). Also, RS was associated with a shorter hospital stay (MD, -0.69 days; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.26), a lower estimated blood loss (MD, -19.49 mL; 95% CI, -27.10 to -11.89) and a longer proximal margin (MD, 2.29 cm; 95% CI, 1.11-3.47). However, RS was associated with a longer surgery time (MD, 51.00 minutes; 95% CI, 39.38-62.62). CONCLUSION: We found that the potential benefits of perioperative and short-term outcomes for RS than for CLS. For a more accurate understanding of RS for colonic cancer patients, robust comparative studies and randomized clinical trials are required.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only. METHODS: We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I2 = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I2 = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I2 = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.