Technical success rate and safety of radiologically inserted gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in motor neuron disease patients undergoing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) have gained increasing popularity among clinicians and motor neuron disease (MND) patients for maintaining adequate nutritional intake. However, there is no consistent evidence of the efficacy and safety of the two techniques in MND patients. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the technical success rates, complication rates and 30-day mortality of MND patients receiving PEG and RIG. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to September 12, 2019 for comparative studies on the efficacy and safety of PEG and RIG in MND patients. The primary outcome was technical success rate and the secondary outcomes were complication rates and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 603) were included. Pooled technical success rates were 90.15% in patients receiving PEG and 96.76% in patients undergoing RIG. There was a statistically significant difference in the technical success rate between RIG and PEG, strongly favoring RIG [(OR = 3.96, 95% CI (1.31to 12.02); P = .02]. Pooled major complication rates were 2.19% in patients receiving PEG and 0.07% in patients undergoing RIG, with no statistical difference (P = .08). Pooled procedure-related 30-day mortality rates were 5.31% in patients receiving PEG and 6.00% in patients undergoing RIG, with no statistically significant difference (P = .75). No publication bias was noted. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared to PEG, RIG has a higher technical success rate and has a comparable mortality outcome and safety profile.

Silicone-covered biodegradable magnesium stent for treating benign esophageal stricture in a rabbit model.

BACKGROUND: Stent insertion can effective alleviate the symptoms of benign esophageal strictures (BES). Magnesium alloy stents are a good candidate because of biological safety, but show a poor corrosion resistance and a quick loss of mechanical support in vivo. AIM: To test the therapeutic and adverse effects of a silicone-covered magnesium alloy biodegradable esophageal stent. METHODS: Fifteen rabbits underwent silicone-covered biodegradable magnesium stent insertion into the benign esophageal stricture under fluoroscopic guidance (stent group). The wall reconstruction and tissue reaction of stenotic esophagus in the stent group were compared with those of six esophageal stricture models (control group). Esophagography was performed at 1, 2, and 3 weeks. Four, six, and five rabbits in the stent group and two rabbits in the control groups were euthanized, respectively, at each time point for histological examination. RESULTS: All stent insertions were well tolerated. The esophageal diameters at immediately, 1, 2 and 3 wk were 9.8 ± 0.3 mm, 9.7 ± 0.7 mm, 9.4 ± 0.8 mm, and 9.2 ± 0.5 mm, respectively (vs 4.9 ± 0.3 mm before stent insertion; P < 0.05). Magnesium stents migrated in eight rabbits [one at 1 wk (1/15), three at 2 wk (3/11), and four at 3 wk (4/5)]. Esophageal wall remodeling (thinner epithelial and smooth muscle layers) was found significantly thinner in the stent group than in the control group (P < 0.05). Esophageal injury and collagen deposition following stent insertion were similar and did not differ compared to rabbits with esophageal stricture and normal rabbits (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Esophageal silicone-covered biodegradable magnesium stent insertion is feasible for BES without causing severe injury or tissue reaction. Our study suggests that insertion of silicone-covered magnesium esophageal stent is a promising approach for treating BES.