Endoscopic vacuum therapy and early surgical closure after pelvic anastomotic leak: meta-analysis of bowel continuity rates.
Journal
The British journal of surgery
ISSN: 1365-2168
Titre abrégé: Br J Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 08 2022
16 08 2022
Historique:
received:
01
01
2022
revised:
10
04
2022
accepted:
21
04
2022
pubmed:
1
6
2022
medline:
19
8
2022
entrez:
31
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) with or without early surgical closure (ESC) is considered an effective option in the management of pelvic anastomotic leakage. This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of EVT in terms of stoma reversal rate and the added value of ESC. A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2021 to identify articles on EVT in adult patients with pelvic anastomotic leakage. The primary outcome was restored continuity rate. Following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. Twenty-nine studies were included, accounting for 827 patients with leakage who underwent EVT. There was large heterogeneity between studies in design and reported outcomes, and a high risk of bias. The overall weighted mean restored continuity rate was 66.8 (95 per cent c.i. 58.8 to 73.9) per cent. In patients undergoing EVT with ESC, the calculated restored continuity rate was 82 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 50.1 to 95.4) as compared to 64.7 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 55.7 to 72.7) after EVT without ESC. The mean number of sponge exchanges was 4 (95 per cent c.i. 2.7 to 4.6) and 9.8 (95 per cent c.i. 7.3 to 12.3), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed a restored continuity rate of 81 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 55.8 to 99.5) for benign disease, 69.0 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 57.3 to 78.7) for colorectal cancer, and 65 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 48.8 to 79.1) if neoadjuvant radiotherapy was given. EVT is associated with satisfactory stoma reversal rates that may be improved if it is combined with ESC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) with or without early surgical closure (ESC) is considered an effective option in the management of pelvic anastomotic leakage. This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of EVT in terms of stoma reversal rate and the added value of ESC.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2021 to identify articles on EVT in adult patients with pelvic anastomotic leakage. The primary outcome was restored continuity rate. Following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies were included, accounting for 827 patients with leakage who underwent EVT. There was large heterogeneity between studies in design and reported outcomes, and a high risk of bias. The overall weighted mean restored continuity rate was 66.8 (95 per cent c.i. 58.8 to 73.9) per cent. In patients undergoing EVT with ESC, the calculated restored continuity rate was 82 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 50.1 to 95.4) as compared to 64.7 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 55.7 to 72.7) after EVT without ESC. The mean number of sponge exchanges was 4 (95 per cent c.i. 2.7 to 4.6) and 9.8 (95 per cent c.i. 7.3 to 12.3), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed a restored continuity rate of 81 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 55.8 to 99.5) for benign disease, 69.0 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 57.3 to 78.7) for colorectal cancer, and 65 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 48.8 to 79.1) if neoadjuvant radiotherapy was given.
CONCLUSION
EVT is associated with satisfactory stoma reversal rates that may be improved if it is combined with ESC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35640282
pii: 6594892
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac158
pmc: PMC10364759
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
822-831Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Colorectal Dis. 2011 Nov;13 Suppl 7:18-22
pubmed: 22098512
Ann Surg. 2011 May;253(5):890-9
pubmed: 21394013
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135
pubmed: 25524443
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Jul;24(7):819-25
pubmed: 19241081
Colorectal Dis. 2021 Apr;23(4):982-988
pubmed: 33169512
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jan;32(1):315-327
pubmed: 28664443
Tech Coloproctol. 2013 Jun;17(3):275-81
pubmed: 23111399
Ann Gastroenterol. 2017;30(6):649-653
pubmed: 29118559
Colorectal Dis. 2010 Jul;12(7 Online):e104-8
pubmed: 19508536
World J Surg. 2014 Apr;38(4):985-91
pubmed: 24305917
Surg Endosc. 2009 Nov;23(11):2459-65
pubmed: 19301071
Ann Coloproctol. 2022 Jun;38(3):230-234
pubmed: 34111349
Dig Liver Dis. 2015 Apr;47(4):342-5
pubmed: 25563812
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015 Dec;25(6):505-8
pubmed: 26551234
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jul;32(7):3349-3356
pubmed: 29362911
Surg Endosc. 2013 Aug;27(8):3003-8
pubmed: 23404152
Dig Surg. 2020;37(6):456-462
pubmed: 32829324
Endoscopy. 2008 Mar;40(3):192-9
pubmed: 18189215
Surg Technol Int. 2017 Jan 10;30:125-130
pubmed: 28072899
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Apr;15(4):e190-8
pubmed: 23331871
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Jan;19(1):O1-O12
pubmed: 27671222
Ann Surg. 2017 Nov;266(5):870-877
pubmed: 28746154
BJS Open. 2018 Dec 26;3(2):153-160
pubmed: 30957061
Tech Coloproctol. 2019 Jun;23(6):551-557
pubmed: 31338710
Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):6687-6695
pubmed: 33259019
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Surg Endosc. 2022 Feb;36(2):959-967
pubmed: 33650007
Br J Surg. 2005 Sep;92(9):1150-4
pubmed: 16035134
Lancet Oncol. 2007 Apr;8(4):297-303
pubmed: 17395102
Colorectal Dis. 2011 Jun;13(6):632-7
pubmed: 20236150
Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Jul;24(7):685-694
pubmed: 32377984
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Feb;18(2):147-54
pubmed: 26277690
Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Apr;51(4):404-10
pubmed: 18197452
Surg Endosc. 2008 Aug;22(8):1818-25
pubmed: 18095024
J Crohns Colitis. 2019 Dec 10;13(12):1537-1545
pubmed: 31054256
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Jun;15(6):727-32
pubmed: 23216939
Dig Liver Dis. 2015 Jun;47(6):465-9
pubmed: 25769505
Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Mar;22(3):223-229
pubmed: 29502228
Colorectal Dis. 2010 Oct;12(10):1018-25
pubmed: 19681979
Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Mar;22(3):231-233
pubmed: 29480425
Surg Endosc. 2009 Jun;23(6):1379-83
pubmed: 19037698
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Mar;22(3):243-253
pubmed: 31274227
Dan Med J. 2013 Apr;60(4):A4604
pubmed: 23651714
Surgery. 2009 Feb;145(2):182-8
pubmed: 19167973
Br J Surg. 1990 Oct;77(10):1095-7
pubmed: 2136198
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Feb;20(2):328-34
pubmed: 26597270
Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 Mar;63(3):371-380
pubmed: 31842165
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Dec;20(12):2035-2051
pubmed: 27638764
Surg Innov. 2018 Aug;25(4):350-356
pubmed: 29701133
Colorectal Dis. 2014 Feb;16(2):95-109
pubmed: 23992097
JAMA. 2006 Feb 8;295(6):676-80
pubmed: 16467236
Br J Surg. 2021 Jun 22;108(6):609-612
pubmed: 33793724
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jan;220(1):82-92.e1
pubmed: 25451666
ANZ J Surg. 2021 Apr;91(4):537-545
pubmed: 33480168
Ann Surg. 2011 Dec;254(6):907-13
pubmed: 21562405
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Aug;22(8):973-974
pubmed: 32150763
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020 Jan;35(1):109-117
pubmed: 31792582