Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Gastroenterology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Surg Endosc. 2020 Jun;34(6):2429-2444. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07469-9. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
To compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Treatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies.
We performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 criteria and searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trails that compared an endoscopic treatment to a surgical treatment for patients with infected walled-off necrosis and included one of the main outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The main outcomes were mortality and new onset multiple organ failure. Prospero registration ID: CRD42019126033 RESULTS: Three RCTs with 190 patients were included. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference in mortality. However, patients in the endoscopic group had statistically significant lower odds of experiencing new onset multiple organ failure (odds ratio (OR) confidence interval [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.98]) and were statistically less likely to suffer from perforations of visceral organs or enterocutaneous fistulae (OR [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93]), and pancreatic fistulae (OR [CI] 0.09 [0.03, 0.28]). Patients with endoscopic treatment had a statistically significant lower mean hospital stay (Mean difference [CI] - 7.86 days [- 14.49, - 1.22]). No differences in bleeding requiring intervention, incisional hernia, exocrine or endocrine insufficiency or ICU stay were apparent. Overall certainty of evidence was moderate.
There seem to be possible benefits of endoscopic treatment procedure. Given the heterogenous procedures in the surgical group as well as the low amount of randomized evidence, further studies are needed to evaluate the combination of different approaches and appropriate timepoints for interventions.
根据随机对照试验(RCT)的结果,比较内镜治疗和手术治疗感染性坏死性胰腺炎(INP)的结果。
在过去的二十年中,由于采用了介入性、内镜和微创手术来引流和坏死组织清除,INP 的治疗方法发生了变化。然而,这主要依赖于观察性研究。
我们按照 Cochrane 和 PRISMA 指南以及 AMSTAR-2 标准进行了系统评价,并检索了 CENTRAL、Medline 和 Web of Science。纳入了比较内镜治疗与手术治疗感染性包裹性坏死患者的 RCT,且纳入了一项主要结局。主要结局是死亡率和新发多器官衰竭。Prospéro 注册号:CRD42019126033。
纳入了 3 项 RCT,共 190 例患者。意向治疗分析显示死亡率无差异。然而,内镜组患者新发多器官衰竭的可能性显著降低(优势比[OR]置信区间[CI]0.31[0.10,0.98]),并且发生内脏器官穿孔或肠外瘘(OR[CI]0.31[0.10,0.93])和胰瘘(OR[CI]0.09[0.03,0.28])的可能性较低,并且内镜治疗的患者住院时间明显缩短(平均差值[CI]-7.86 天[-14.49,-1.22])。在需要干预的出血、切口疝、外分泌或内分泌功能不全或 ICU 停留时间方面,两组间没有明显差异。证据的总体确定性为中度。
内镜治疗方法似乎可能具有优势。鉴于手术组中治疗方法的异质性以及随机证据的数量较少,需要进一步研究来评估不同方法的组合以及干预的适当时间点。