1.
Comparison of endoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A preliminary meta-analysis.
Zhu, H, Zhao, S, Jiao, R, Zhou, J, Zhang, C, Miao, L
Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2020;(11):1858-1868
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM For localized disease, complete surgical resection is regarded as the "gold standard" therapeutic modality. With the rapid development of endoscopic techniques, endoscopic resection (ESR) has been confirmed as an efficient and safe alternative for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in the stomach. Nevertheless, the management of gastric GISTs remains poorly defined. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the security and effectiveness of ESR with laparoscopic resection (LAR) for gastric GISTs. METHODS A literature search of online databases was conducted to identify relevant comparative studies of ESR and LAR procedures for gastric GISTs published before April 10, 2020. The cumulative data analysis was also performed utilizing the software STATA. RESULTS In total, 10 studies involving 1165 patients met the inclusion criteria for analysis (651 for ESR and 514 for LAR). From the results of meta-analysis, patients who underwent ESR experienced decreased operative time (P = 0.000), less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.002), earlier time to diet (P = 0.000), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.000), and lower total charges (P = 0.000) compared with LAR. Moreover, there were no significant differences between these two approaches concerning tumor rupture, conversion rate to other procedure, complete resection rate, postoperative complication rate, recurrence rate, and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS Endoscopic resection, as an effective alternative treatment strategy with satisfactory outcomes, is acceptable for selective patients with gastric GISTs compared with LAR. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with large samples are warranted to corroborate our observations.
2.
Virtual reality simulation training in endoscopy: a Cochrane review and meta-analysis.
Khan, R, Plahouras, J, Johnston, BC, Scaffidi, MA, Grover, SC, Walsh, CM
Endoscopy. 2019;(7):653-664
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endoscopy programs are increasingly integrating simulation training. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether virtual reality (VR) simulation training can supplement and/or replace conventional patient-based endoscopy training for health professional trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. METHODS We searched medical, educational, and computer literature databases in July 2017 for trials that compared VR simulation training with no training, conventional training, another form of simulation training, or an alternative method of VR training. We screened, abstracted data, and performed quantitative analysis and quality assessment through Cochrane methodology. RESULTS We included 18 trials with 3817 endoscopic procedures. VR training provided no advantage over no training or conventional training based on the primary outcome of composite score of competency. VR training was advantageous over no training based on independent procedure completion (relative risk [RR] = 1.62, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15 - 2.26, moderate-quality evidence), overall rating of performance (mean difference [MD] 0.45, 95 %CI 0.15 - 0.75, very low-quality evidence), and mucosal visualization (MD 0.60, 95 %CI 0.20 - 1.00, very low-quality evidence). Compared with conventional training, VR training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR = 0.45, 95 %CI 0.27 - 0.74, low-quality evidence). We found no differences between VR training and no training or conventional training for other outcomes. Based on qualitative analysis, we found no significant differences between VR training and other forms of simulation training. VR curricula based in educational theory provided benefit with respect to composite score of competency, compared with unstructured curricula. CONCLUSIONS : VR simulation training is advantageous over no training and can supplement conventional endoscopy training. There is insufficient evidence that simulation training provides benefit over conventional training.
3.
Endoscopic Dilation of Bariatric RNY Anastomotic Strictures: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Baumann, AJ, Mramba, LK, Hawkins, RB, Carpenter, AM, Fleisher, MS, Ayzengart, AL, Estores, DS
Obesity surgery. 2018;(12):4053-4063
Abstract
Gastrojejunostomy anastomotic strictures are a complication of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery without an established treatment guideline. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the safety and efficacy of endoscopic dilation in their management. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central (1994-2017) were searched. Data was analyzed with random effects meta-analysis and mixed effects meta-regression. Twenty-one observational studies (896 patients) were included. The stricture rate for laparoscopic patients was 6% (95% CI, 5-9%). Only 38% (95% CI, 30-47%) required greater than one dilation. Symptom improvement occurred in 97% (95% CI, 94-98%). The complication rate was 4% (95% CI, 3-6%). Endoscopic dilation of GJA strictures is safe, effective, and sustaining. This study can guide endoscopists in the treatment of a common bariatric surgical complication.