Endoscopic stenting versus surgical gastroenterostomy for palliation of malignant gastroduodenal obstruction: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

We attempted to elucidate the current status of endoscopic self-expanding metal stents for palliation of malignant gastroduodenal obstruction in comparison with surgical gastroenterostomy.

METHODS

Original articles and abstracts published from January 1990 to September 2006 were searched in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases. Clinical appraisal and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers. Statistical analysis was performed by meta-analysis using a random effects model. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze continuous variables. Odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

The outcomes of 307 procedures from nine studies were analyzed. Endoscopic stenting was found to be associated with higher clinical success (P = 0.007), a shorter time from the procedure to starting oral intake (P < 0.001), less morbidity (P = 0.02), lower incidence of delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.002), and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) than surgical gastroenterostomy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the analysis of 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic stenting may be a feasible alternative to surgery for the palliation of inoperable malignant gastroduodenal obstruction, with a high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Additional well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are expected to further reinforce this conclusion.