ABSTRACT
Obesity is one of the most debilitating conditions. In a quest to mitigate disease severity, various interventions have been proposed, with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and laparoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (LSG) being among the recent interventions that have received growing attention. This systematic review sought to conduct a comparative analysis regarding the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of both interventions. The study involved a systematic review in which key search engines were used to select articles documented and published in the last decade. The articles for inclusion were those existing as peer-reviewed studies touching upon the aforementioned subject, with both controlled and uncontrolled trials included. Furthermore, there was the implementation of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol that governs systematic reviews, in which the article selection process entailed four key procedures in the form of identification, screening, determining eligibility, and the inclusion process. In the findings, the selected articles documented mixed outcomes, but a common denominator was that the safety profile of ESG tends to be superior to that of LSG due to the observations that ESG comes with fewer adverse events such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and severe nausea and vomiting. However, the majority of the studies contended that LSG proved superior to ESG in terms of effectiveness and efficacy. Hence, individuals with mild-to-moderate obesity are more likely to benefit from ESG, but those with severe obesity whose goal is to achieve long-term weight management might benefit more from LSG. In conclusion, the management of obesity and the decision to employ ESG or LSG ought to be patient-centered and dictated by factors such as patient preferences, safety, and the sustainability of the devised plan of care.
ABSTRACT
The main aim of this paper was to examine the efficacy and safety of revision endoscopic gastroplasty and some of the adverse events likely to arise from the procedure, as well as the implications for future scholarly research. The study is a systematic review in which the PRISMA protocol was used to govern the article's inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selected studies include those on revising endoscopic gastroplasty's effectiveness and safety. The studies were selected based on multiple parameters. The outcome included weight recidivism, excessive BMI loss, and absolute, total, or percentage weight loss. The outcome of this review confirmed that revision endoscopic gastroplasty is effective and safe. Mainly, revision endoscopic gastroplasty (R-EG) was found to counter-weight recidivism, especially short-term and mid-term. However, there is a need for additional scholarly investigations that would last several years to decades to inform the long-term efficacy of R-EG with precision.
ABSTRACT
Different colorectal lesions have attracted different procedures in their management. One of the novel approaches that have been documented in recent times is endoscopic transcecal appendectomy (ETA). ETA is an endoscopic and less invasive approach to the excision of lesions within the appendix. The appendix is also completely resected in the process. The main aim of this paper is to establish some of the benefits and risks that come with ETA. The study was conducted from a systematic review perspective using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, which governs the implementation of systematic reviews. Key considerations in the PRISMA framework used in this article include identifying the articles, screening them, and determining their eligibility and their final inclusion or exclusion based on the specified criteria. To arrive at relevant articles, some keywords were used in the various search engines of the databases that were consulted. Some of the keywords that were used included ETA, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), adverse events, risks, safety, efficacy, and the appendiceal orifice. It was established that the key benefits of the ETA include the ability to avoid postoperative appendicitis and residual lesions in tissue. On the other hand, some risks that could come with ETA were found to include potential tumor seeding and postoperative bleeding. However, the key study limitation is that most of the referenced studies in this literature review are retrospective case series and case reports that are prone to selection bias. Furthermore, most ETA procedures in this literature review were performed by a few experienced and highly skilled endoscopists, making the ability to make such results generalizable to all endoscopists and patient populations a debatable issue. In the future, there is a need for more multicenter and large studies to be conducted with longer follow-up periods to ascertain the results obtained in this review. This will ensure a more informed decision-making process for or against ETA implementation in real-world clinical environments.
