Sequential transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and portal vein embolization before hepatectomy for the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

R0 resection is the gold standard for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. However, residual liver deficiency remains a major obstacle to hepatectomy. This article aims to explore the short-term and long-term efficacy of preoperative sequential transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and portal vein embolization (PVE) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Multiple electronic literature databases up to February 2022 were searched. Furthermore, clinical studies comparing sequential TACE + PVE with portal vein embolization (PVE) were included. The outcomes included hepatectomy rate, overall survival, disease-free survival, overall morbidity, mortality, posthepatectomy liver failure, the percentage increase in FLR. Five studies included 242 patients who received sequential TACE + PVE and 169 patients received PVE. The sequential TACE + PVE group demonstrated more favorable results in terms of hepatectomy rate (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09-5.11; P = 0.03), overall survival (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to - 0.79; P = 0.001), disease-free survival (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002), and percentage increase in FLR (MD = 4.16%; 95% CI 1.13-7.19; P = 0.007). The pooled results did not demonstrate significant differences in overall morbidity, mortality, and posthepatectomy liver failure between the sequential TACE + PVE and PVE groups. Preoperative sequential TACE + PVE has been shown to be a safe and feasible treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma to improve resectability, and it has been shown to provide better long-term oncological outcomes than PVE.

Single-stage intraoperative ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus preoperative ERCP Followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal treatment strategy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. We conducted an up-to-date meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the intra- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) + LC procedure with the traditional pre-ERCP +  laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) procedure in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to September 2020. Published randomized controlled trials comparing intra-ERCP + LC and pre-ERCP + LC were considered. This meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager Version 5.3, and outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 977 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding CBD stone clearance (RR = 1.03, P = .27), postoperative papilla bleeding (RR = 0.41, P = .13), postoperative cholangitis (RR = 0.87, P = .79), and operation conversion rate (RR = 0.71, P = .26). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the intra-ERCP + LC group (MD = -2.75, P < .05), and intra-ERCP + LC was associated with lower overall morbidity (RR = 0.54, P < .05), postoperative pancreatitis (RR = 0.29, P < .05) and cannulation failure rate (RR = 0.22, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-ERCP + LC was a safer approach for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. It could facilitate intubation, shorten hospital stay, and lower postoperative complications, especially postoperative pancreatitis, and reduce stone residue and reduce the possibility of reoperation for stone removal.

Is endoscopic drainage better than percutaneous drainage for patients with pancreatic fluid collections? A comparative meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results. METHODS: we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.