Cargando…

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions

Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated by endoscopic (EA) or surgical ampullectomy (SA) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, EA carries significant risk of incomplete resection while surgical interventions can lead to substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heise, Christian, Abou Ali, Einas, Hasenclever, Dirk, Auriemma, Francesco, Gulla, Aiste, Regner, Sara, Gaujoux, Sébastien, Hollenbach, Marcus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33182806
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9113622
_version_ 1783615420184395776
author Heise, Christian
Abou Ali, Einas
Hasenclever, Dirk
Auriemma, Francesco
Gulla, Aiste
Regner, Sara
Gaujoux, Sébastien
Hollenbach, Marcus
author_facet Heise, Christian
Abou Ali, Einas
Hasenclever, Dirk
Auriemma, Francesco
Gulla, Aiste
Regner, Sara
Gaujoux, Sébastien
Hollenbach, Marcus
author_sort Heise, Christian
collection PubMed
description Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated by endoscopic (EA) or surgical ampullectomy (SA) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, EA carries significant risk of incomplete resection while surgical interventions can lead to substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for R0, adverse-events (AEs) and recurrence between EA, SA and PD. Electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2018. Outcomes were calculated as pooled means using fixed and random-effects models and the Freeman-Tukey-Double-Arcsine-Proportion-model. We identified 59 independent studies. The pooled R0 rate was 76.6% (71.8–81.4%, I(2) = 91.38%) for EA, 96.4% (93.6–99.2%, I(2) = 37.8%) for SA and 98.9% (98.0–99.7%, I(2) = 0%) for PD. AEs were 24.7% (19.8–29.6%, I(2) = 86.4%), 28.3% (19.0–37.7%, I(2) = 76.8%) and 44.7% (37.9–51.4%, I(2) = 0%), respectively. Recurrences were registered in 13.0% (10.2–15.6%, I(2) = 91.3%), 9.4% (4.8–14%, I(2) = 57.3%) and 14.2% (9.5–18.9%, I(2) = 0%). Differences between proportions were significant in R0 for EA compared to SA (p = 0.007) and PD (p = 0.022). AEs were statistically different only between EA and PD (p = 0.049) and recurrence showed no significance for EA/SA or EA/PD. Our data indicate an increased rate of complete resection in surgical interventions accompanied with a higher risk of complications. However, studies showed various sources of bias, limited quality of data and a significant heterogeneity, particularly in EA studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7696506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76965062020-11-29 Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions Heise, Christian Abou Ali, Einas Hasenclever, Dirk Auriemma, Francesco Gulla, Aiste Regner, Sara Gaujoux, Sébastien Hollenbach, Marcus J Clin Med Review Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated by endoscopic (EA) or surgical ampullectomy (SA) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, EA carries significant risk of incomplete resection while surgical interventions can lead to substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for R0, adverse-events (AEs) and recurrence between EA, SA and PD. Electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2018. Outcomes were calculated as pooled means using fixed and random-effects models and the Freeman-Tukey-Double-Arcsine-Proportion-model. We identified 59 independent studies. The pooled R0 rate was 76.6% (71.8–81.4%, I(2) = 91.38%) for EA, 96.4% (93.6–99.2%, I(2) = 37.8%) for SA and 98.9% (98.0–99.7%, I(2) = 0%) for PD. AEs were 24.7% (19.8–29.6%, I(2) = 86.4%), 28.3% (19.0–37.7%, I(2) = 76.8%) and 44.7% (37.9–51.4%, I(2) = 0%), respectively. Recurrences were registered in 13.0% (10.2–15.6%, I(2) = 91.3%), 9.4% (4.8–14%, I(2) = 57.3%) and 14.2% (9.5–18.9%, I(2) = 0%). Differences between proportions were significant in R0 for EA compared to SA (p = 0.007) and PD (p = 0.022). AEs were statistically different only between EA and PD (p = 0.049) and recurrence showed no significance for EA/SA or EA/PD. Our data indicate an increased rate of complete resection in surgical interventions accompanied with a higher risk of complications. However, studies showed various sources of bias, limited quality of data and a significant heterogeneity, particularly in EA studies. MDPI 2020-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7696506/ /pubmed/33182806 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9113622 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Heise, Christian
Abou Ali, Einas
Hasenclever, Dirk
Auriemma, Francesco
Gulla, Aiste
Regner, Sara
Gaujoux, Sébastien
Hollenbach, Marcus
Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions
title Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions
title_full Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions
title_fullStr Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions
title_short Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions
title_sort systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic and surgical resection for ampullary lesions
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33182806
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9113622
work_keys_str_mv AT heisechristian systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT aboualieinas systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT hasencleverdirk systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT auriemmafrancesco systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT gullaaiste systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT regnersara systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT gaujouxsebastien systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions
AT hollenbachmarcus systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisendoscopicandsurgicalresectionforampullarylesions