Suppr超能文献

少即是多——在回肠造口术逆转前评估直肠癌患者吻合口漏的最佳检测方法。

Less is more-the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Hospital Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.

Institute of Medical Statistics and Biomathematics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.

出版信息

Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021 Nov;36(11):2387-2398. doi: 10.1007/s00384-021-03963-1. Epub 2021 Jul 12.

Abstract

PURPOSE

No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk-benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771.

摘要

目的

在回肠造口还纳术前,对于如何常规评估结直肠吻合口的完整性,目前尚无明确共识。本研究旨在评估对比灌肠、内镜检查和直肠指检在直肠癌患者中的准确性。

方法

进行了系统的文献检索。纳入了至少评估一种可计算 2×2 表格的指标试验的研究。计算了分层汇总受试者工作特征曲线,并用于比较测试。在无法计算参数的情况下使用配对数据。使用 QUADAS-2 工具评估方法学质量。

结果

有 2 项前瞻性研究和 11 项回顾性研究共纳入 1903 例患者。配对数据分析显示,内镜检查和直肠指检的敏感性和特异性与对比灌肠相比结果相当或更好。根据方法学质量对对比灌肠进行的亚组分析表明,方法学质量较高的研究报告的敏感性与特异性相等,而特异性较差,反之亦然。没有描述任何案例表明对比灌肠漏诊了在直肠指检或内镜检查中被忽略的吻合口漏。

结论

在回肠造口还纳术前,内镜检查和直肠指检似乎是评估结直肠吻合口完整性的最佳诊断试验。方法学质量较低的研究高估了对比灌肠的准确性。现有证据的综合评估和风险效益考虑证明,为了支持内镜和临床评估,可排除对比灌肠。

试验注册

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8c1c/8505329/cfb495194a3c/384_2021_3963_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验