Gastrointestinal endoscopy
-
Gastrointest. Endosc. · May 2020
Review Meta AnalysisPropofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes.
Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy. ⋯ Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.
-
Gastrointest. Endosc. · Mar 2019
Increasing adenoma detection rates in the right side of the colon comparing retroflexion with a second forward view: a systematic review.
Right-sided lesions are often missed during standard colonoscopy (SC). A second forward-view examination or retroflexion in the right side of the colon have both been proposed as techniques to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right side of the colon. Comparative data on examining the right side of the colon with a second forward view or retroflexion is not known in a pooled analysis. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the yield of a second forward view compared with retroflexion examination for the detection of right-sided adenomas. ⋯ After SC withdrawal, a second forward view and retroflexed view of the right side of the colon are both associated with improvement in ADR. One of these techniques should be considered during SC to increase ADR and to improve the quality of colonoscopy.
-
Gastrointest. Endosc. · May 2018
Review Meta Analysis Comparative StudyComparison of EUS with MRCP in idiopathic acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) poses a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists, because confirmation of the disease etiology has important implications for the selection of the best possible treatment and the prevention of possible recurrence or the development of chronic pancreatitis (CP). ERCP, EUS, and MRCP typically are used to diagnose IAP when conventional radiologic methods fail. However, their exact role in the diagnosis of IAP has not yet been determined. ⋯ EUS and MRCP should both be used in the diagnostic work-up of IAP as complementary techniques. EUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy than MRCP (64% vs 34%) in the etiologic diagnosis of IAP and should be preferred for establishing a possible biliary disease and CP diagnosis, whereas S-MRCP was superior to EUS and MRCP in diagnosing a possible anatomic alteration in the biliopancreatic duct system, such as pancreatic divisum.
-
Gastrointest. Endosc. · May 2018
Review Meta Analysis Comparative StudyComparison of EUS with MRCP in idiopathic acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) poses a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists, because confirmation of the disease etiology has important implications for the selection of the best possible treatment and the prevention of possible recurrence or the development of chronic pancreatitis (CP). ERCP, EUS, and MRCP typically are used to diagnose IAP when conventional radiologic methods fail. However, their exact role in the diagnosis of IAP has not yet been determined. ⋯ EUS and MRCP should both be used in the diagnostic work-up of IAP as complementary techniques. EUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy than MRCP (64% vs 34%) in the etiologic diagnosis of IAP and should be preferred for establishing a possible biliary disease and CP diagnosis, whereas S-MRCP was superior to EUS and MRCP in diagnosing a possible anatomic alteration in the biliopancreatic duct system, such as pancreatic divisum.
-
Gastrointest. Endosc. · Sep 2017
Review Meta Analysis Comparative StudyStent as bridge to surgery for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction reduces adverse events and stoma rate compared with emergency surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Twenty years after the first description of the technique, the debate is still open on the role of self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery for symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. The aim was to compare morbidity rates after colonic stenting bridge to surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) for left-sided malignant obstruction. ⋯ SBTS was associated with lower short-term overall morbidity and lower rates of temporary and permanent stoma. Depending on multiple factors such as local expertise, clinical status including level of obstruction, and level of certainty of diagnosis, SBTS does offer some advantages with less risk than ES for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in the short term.