Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and pooled analysis.
Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been proposed as a less invasive, more appealing alternative intervention to fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes following MSA for GERD control in comparison with laparoscopic fundoplication. A systematic electronic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for single-arm cohort studies or comparative studies (with fundoplication) evaluating the use of MSA. ⋯ In conclusion, magnetic sphincter augmentation achieves good GERD symptomatic control similar to that of fundoplication, with the benefit of less gas bloating. The safety of MSA also appears acceptable with only 3.3% of patients requiring device removal. There is an urgent need for randomized data directly comparing fundoplication with MSA for the treatment of GERD to truly evaluate the efficacy of this treatment approach.
-
The impact of preoperative sarcopenia on long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy remains unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis focusing on current topic comprehensively. We systematically searched relevant studies investigating the impact of preoperative sarcopenia on survival of patients with surgically treated esophageal cancer in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to July 20, 2018. ⋯ Therefore, patients with sarcopenia had a significantly worse prognosis than those without after surgical resection of esophageal cancer. Preoperative sarcopenia is an independent unfavorable prognostic factor for esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. However, high-quality studies with appropriate adjustments for confounding factors are needed to confirm our conclusions.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Postoperative pain management after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Effective pain management after esophagectomy is essential for patient comfort, early recovery, low surgical morbidity, and short hospitalization. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the best pain management modality focusing on the balance between benefits and risks. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to identify all studies investigating different pain management modalities after esophagectomy in relation to primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores at 24 and 48 hours, technical failure, and opioid consumption), and secondary outcomes (pulmonary complications, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay). ⋯ Sample sizes were too small to draw inferences on opioid consumption, the risk of nausea and vomiting, hypotension, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay when comparing the different pain management modalities including systemic, epidural, intrathecal, intrapleural, and paravertebral analgesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows no differences in postoperative pain scores or pulmonary complications after esophagectomy between systemic and epidural analgesia, and between systemic and paravertebral analgesia. Further randomized controlled trails are warranted to determine the optimal pain management modality after esophagectomy.
-
The aim of this meta-analysis was to clarify whether a longer interval between the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery is associated with better outcomes in esophageal cancer. nCRT followed by surgery is the most common approach for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Operations are performed within 2-8 weeks after nCRT; however, the optimal interval between nCRT and surgery for esophageal cancer is unknown. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Clinical Trials database for studies published between January 2000 and December 2014. ⋯ A longer interval (more than the standard 7-8 weeks) from the end of preoperative nCRT to surgery did not increase the rate of pCR in esophageal cancer, and the different intervals had similar effects on anastomotic leak rate and postoperative mortality rates. However, the longer interval between nCRT and surgery may be disadvantageous for long-term OS. These results should be validated prospectively in a randomized trial.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: systematic review and pooled analysis.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel approach to performing esophageal myotomy for the treatment of achalasia. This review aims to assess subjective and objective metrics of achalasia treatment efficacy, perioperative adverse events and the incidence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients treated with POEM. Secondary aims include a pooled analysis comparison of the clinical outcomes and procedural safety of POEM versus laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM). ⋯ Pooled analysis of three comparative studies between LHM and POEM showed similar results for adverse events, perforation rate, operative time and a nonsignificant trend toward a reduced length of hospital stay in the POEM group. In conclusion, POEM is a safe and effective treatment for achalasia, showing significant improvements in objective metrics and achalasia-related symptoms. Randomized comparative studies of LHM and POEM are required to determine the most effective treatment modality for achalasia.