Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Language
Publication year range
1.
Clinics (Sao Paulo) ; 78: 100163, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36681067

ABSTRACT

Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.


Subject(s)
Bile Duct Neoplasms , Cholangitis , Klatskin Tumor , Pancreatitis , Humans , Klatskin Tumor/surgery , Klatskin Tumor/complications , Klatskin Tumor/pathology , Bile Duct Neoplasms/surgery , Bile Duct Neoplasms/complications , Bile Duct Neoplasms/pathology , Cholangitis/complications , Cholangitis/pathology , Pancreatitis/complications , Pancreatitis/pathology , Drainage/adverse effects , Drainage/methods , Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic/pathology , Retrospective Studies
2.
Clinics ; 78: 100163, 2023. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1421260

ABSTRACT

Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05-0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

3.
Obes Surg ; 32(10): 3435-3451, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35918596

ABSTRACT

Bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for morbid obesity and its comorbidities. However, post-surgical leaks and fistulas can occur in about 1-5% of patients, with challenging treatment approaches. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged as a promising tool due to its satisfactory results and accessibility. In this first systematic review and meta-analysis on the subject, EVT revealed rates of 87.2% clinical success, 6% moderate adverse events, and 12.5% system dislodgements, requiring 6.47 EVT system exchanges every 4.39 days, with a dwell time of 25.67 days and a total length of hospitalization of 44.43 days. Although our results show that EVT is a safe and effective therapy for post-surgical leaks and fistulas, they should be interpreted with caution due to the paucity of available data.


Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , Fistula , Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy , Obesity, Morbid , Anastomotic Leak/etiology , Anastomotic Leak/surgery , Bariatric Surgery/adverse effects , Endoscopy/methods , Fistula/etiology , Humans , Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy/methods , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL