The aim of this review was to assess the safety and effectiveness of esophageal stents in the management of benign esophageal perforation and in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks.
Benign ...esophageal perforation and postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak are often encountered. Endoscopic placement of esophageal stent across the site of leakage might help control the sepsis and reduce the mortality and morbidity.
All the published case series reporting the use of metallic and plastic stents in the management of postoperative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous esophageal perforations, and iatrogenic esophageal perforations were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed (1990-2012). Primary outcomes assessed were technical success rates and complete healing rates. Secondary outcomes assessed were stent migration rates, stent perforation rates, duration of hospital stay, time to stent removal, and mortality rates. A pooled analysis was performed and subgroup analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately.
A total of 27 case series with 340 patients were included. Technical and clinical success rates of stenting were 91% and 81%, respectively. Stent migration rates were significantly higher with plastic stents than with metallic stents (40/148 vs 13/117 patients, respectively; P = 0.001). Patients with metallic stents had significantly higher incidence of postprocedure strictures (P = 0.006). However, patients with plastic stents needed significantly higher number of reinterventions (P = 0.005). Mean postprocedure hospital stay varied from 8 days to 51 days. There was no significant difference in the primary or secondary outcomes when stenting was performed for anastomotic leaks or perforations.
Endoscopic management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and perforations with the use of esophageal stents is technically feasible. It seems to be safe and effective when performed along with mediastinal or pleural drainage. Esophageal stent can, therefore, be considered as a treatment option in the management of patients who present early after esophageal perforation or anastomotic leak with limited mediastinal or pleural contamination.
Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile ...duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.
We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).
We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.
Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.
Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.
Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.
Introduction
Endoscopic placement of oesophageal stents may be used in benign oesophageal perforation and oesophageal anastomotic leakage to control sepsis and reduce mortality and morbidity by ...avoiding thoracotomy. This updated systematic review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of oesophageal stents in these two scenarios.
Methods
A systematic literature search of all published studies reporting use of metallic and plastic stents in the management of post-operative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous and iatrogenic oesophageal perforations were identified. Primary outcomes were technical (deploying ≥ 1 stent to occlude site of leakage with no evidence of leakage of contrast within 24–48 h) and clinical success (complete healing of perforation or leakage by placement of single or multiple stents irrespective of whether the stent was left in situ or was removed). Secondary outcomes were stent migration, perforation and erosion, and mortality rates. Subgroup analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately.
Results
A total of 66 studies (n = 1752 patients) were included. Technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 87%, respectively. Plastic stents had significantly higher migration rates (24% vs 16%,
p
= 0.001) and repositioning (11% vs 3%,
p
< 0.001) and lower technical success (91% vs 95%,
p
= 0.032) than metallic stents. In patients with anastomotic leaks, plastic stents were associated with higher stent migration (26% vs 15%,
p
= 0.034), perforation (2% vs 0%,
p
= 0.013), repositioning (10% vs 0%,
p
< 0.001), and lower technical success (95% vs 100%,
p
=
p
= 0.002). In patients with perforations only, plastic stents were associated with significantly lower technical success (85% vs 99%,
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Covered metallic oesophageal stents appear to be more effective than plastic stents in the management of oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage. However, quality of evidence of generally poor and high-quality randomised trial is needed to further evaluate best management option for oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage.
Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile ...duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.
We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).
We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.
Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.
Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.
Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.
No conclusive recommendations exist regarding use of abdominal drainage in hepatectomy. The practice of abdominal drainage remains commonplace despite unfavorable outcomes reported by randomized ...controlled trials. We aimed to compare the impact of abdominal drainage on outcomes of hepatectomy.
A systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. A combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits in each of the above databases was applied. Overall perioperative and wound-related complications, bile leak, intra-abdominal collections (including those requiring an intervention), and the length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters.
Seven randomized controlled trials reporting 1,064 patients undergoing hepatectomy with (n = 533) or without (n = 531) placement of abdominal drain were included. Patients in both groups were of comparable age (P = .23), sex (P = .49), proportion of major hepatectomy (P = .93), minor hepatectomy (P = .96), cirrhosis (P = .78), and malignant pathologies (P = .61). Drainage after hepatectomy was associated with significantly higher overall complications (RR: 1.37, P = .0003) and wound-related complications (risk ratio: 2.29, P = .01) compared to no drainage. Moreover, there was no significant difference in bile leak (risk ratio: 2.15, P = .19), intra-abdominal collections (risk ratio: 1.13, P = .70), intra-abdominal collections requiring interventions (risk ratio: 1.19, P = .71), or length of hospital stay (mean difference: 0.37, P = .67) between the 2 groups. The trial sequential analysis confirmed conclusiveness of the findings.
Abdominal drainage after hepatectomy increases overall and wound-related complications, without any reduction in the risk of intra-abdominal collections needing an intervention. Routine drainage after an uncomplicated hepatectomy should be avoided, with the possible exception of the presence of a bilioenteric anastomosis.
Background
The present systematic review aimed to compare survival outcomes of invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IIPMNs) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone and ...to identify pathologic features that may predict survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Method
A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE was performed using the PRISMA framework. Studies comparing adjuvant chemotherapy and surgery alone for patients with IIPMNs were included. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). A narrative synthesis was performed to identify pathologic features that predicted survival benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Results
Eleven studies and 3393 patients with IIPMNs were included in the meta-analysis. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death in the overall cohort (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38–0.87,
p
= 0.009) and node-positive patients (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13–0.64,
p
= 0.002). Weighted median survival difference between adjuvant chemotherapy and surgery alone in node-positive patients was 11.6 months (95% CI 3.83–19.38,
p
= 0.003) favouring chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy had no impact on OS in node-negative patients (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20–1.43,
p
= 0.209). High heterogeneity (
I
2
> 75%) was observed in pooled estimates of hazard ratios. Improved OS following adjuvant chemotherapy was reported for patients with stage III/IV disease, tumour size > 2 cm, node-positive status, grade 3 tumour differentiation, positive margin status, tubular carcinoma subtype, and presence of perineural or lymphovascular invasion.
Conclusion
Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in node-positive IIPMNs. However, the findings were limited by marked heterogeneity. Future large multicentre prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore additional predictors of improved OS to guide patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy.
Extended duration of normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) provides opportunities to resuscitate suboptimal donor livers. This intervention requires adequate oxygen delivery typically provided by a ...blood-based perfusion solution. Methaemoglobin (MetHb) results from the oxidation of iron within haemoglobin and represents a serious problem in perfusions lasting > 24 h. We explored the effects of anti-oxidant, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) on the accumulation of methaemoglobin. NMP was performed on nine human donor livers declined for transplantation: three were perfused without NAC (no-NAC group), and six organs perfused with an initial NAC bolus, followed by continuous infusion (NAC group), with hourly methaemoglobin perfusate measurements. In-vitro experiments examined the impact of NAC (3 mg) on red cells (30 ml) in the absence of liver tissue. The no-NAC group sustained perfusions for an average of 96 (range 87-102) h, universally developing methaemoglobinaemia (≥ 2%) observed after an average of 45 h, with subsequent steep rise. The NAC group was perfused for an average of 148 (range 90-184) h. Only 2 livers developed methaemoglobinaemia (peak MetHb of 6%), with an average onset of 116.5 h. Addition of NAC efficiently limits formation and accumulation of methaemoglobin during NMP, and allows the significant extension of perfusion duration.
The use of old donors in liver transplantation Dasari, Bobby V.M., MD, FRCS; Schlegel, Andrea, MD, FEBS; Mergental, Hynek, MD, PhD ...
Baillière's best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology,
04/2017, Letnik:
31, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Abstract The process of ageing has an impact on the entire human body including the organ systems. In transplantation, professionals are daily faced with risk assessment of suitable donor offers , ...whether to accept a liver graft for a specific recipient. In this context, livers from elderly donors are more frequently accepted for transplantation, to increase the donor pool and compensate the high waiting list mortality. In the current practice it is not unusual to accept 60-year old donor livers for transplantation, as the donor demographics have significantly changed over the years. However, controversy exists regarding the use of livers from donors above 70 or 80 years, particular in combination with other risk factors, e.g. liver steatosis, warm ischaemia or long cold storage. This review focuses first on the impact of ageing on liver morphology and function. Second, we will highlight outcome after transplantation from elderly donors. Finally, we describe further risk factors and donor–recipient selection under the scope of old donor organs and include our institutional experience and policy.
PDF
