PDF herunterladen
Endoscopy
DOI: 10.1055/a-2309-7683
Systematic review

Palliative procedures for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: A network meta-analysis

Khoi Van Tran
1   Department of Surgery, Hue University, Hue City, Viet Nam (Ringgold ID: RIN95414)
,
Nguyen-Phong Vo
2   Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Cho Ray Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam (Ringgold ID: RIN58601)
,
Hung Song Nguyen
3   Department of Pediatrics, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam (Ringgold ID: RIN384732)
,
Nhi Thi Vo
4   Faculty of Nursing, Hue University, Hue City, Viet Nam (Ringgold ID: RIN95414)
,
Thi Bao Trang Thai
5   International PhD Program in Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (Ringgold ID: RIN38032)
,
Vu Anh Pham
1   Department of Surgery, Hue University, Hue City, Viet Nam (Ringgold ID: RIN95414)
,
El-Wui Loh
6   Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (Ringgold ID: RIN38032)
,
Ka-Wai Tam
7   Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan (Ringgold ID: RIN499996)
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  als PDF herunterladen

Background: The optimal treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) remains uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively investigate the efficacy and safety of four palliative treatments for malignant GOO: gastrojejunostomy (GJ), endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EGE), stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy (PGJ), and endoscopic stenting (ES). Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the aforementioned treatments for malignant GOO. We included studies that reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: clinical success, 30-day mortality, reintervention rate, or length of hospital stay. Evidence from RCTs and non-RCTs was naïve combined to perform network meta-analysis through the frequentist approach using an inverse variance model. Treatments were ranked by P-score. Results: This network meta-analysis included 3417 patients from 4 RCTs, 4 prospective cohort studies, and 32 retrospective cohort studies. PGJ was the optimal approach in terms of clinical success and reintervention (P-scores: 0.95 and 0.90, respectively). EGE had the highest probability of being the optimal treatment in terms of 30-day mortality and complications (P-scores: 0.82 and 0.99, respectively). Cluster ranking to combine the P-scores for 30-day mortality and reintervention indicated the benefits of PGJ and EGE (cophenetic correlation coefficient: 0.94; PGJ and EGE were in the same cluster). Conclusion: PGJ and EGE are recommended for malignant GOO. PGJ could be the alternative choice in centers with limited resources or cases unsuitable for EGE.



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 04. Dezember 2023

Angenommen nach Revision: 19. April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
19. April 2024

© . Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany