A protocolized approach to endoscopic hydrostatic versus pneumatic balloon dilation therapy for gastric sleeve stenosis: a multicenter study and meta-analysis.

医学 荟萃分析 外科 气球 球囊扩张 膨胀(度量空间) 随机对照试验
作者
Veeravich Jaruvongvanich,Reem Matar,Azizullah Beran,Daniel B. Maselli,Andrew C. Storm,Victoria Gomez,Eric J. Vargas,Todd A. Kellogg,Travis J. McKenzie,Rahul Pannala,Manoel Galvao Neto,Andre Texeira,Barham K. Abu Dayyeh
出处
期刊:Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases [Elsevier BV]
卷期号:16 (10): 1543-1553 被引量:2
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.soard.2020.05.009
摘要

Abstract Background Gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is reported in .7% to 4% of cases after sleeve gastrectomy. Two endoscopic balloon dilation techniques are available with no clear consensus on the therapeutic approach. Objectives To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between hydrostatic and pneumatic balloon dilations for GSS. Setting Academic referral centers, United States and a meta-analysis. Methods Consecutive patients who presented with GSS and underwent endoscopic hydrostatic and/or pneumatic balloon dilations at 3 tertiary care hospitals were included. Clinical success was defined as an improvement of symptoms that allowed the patient to avoid further interventions. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies for meta-analysis. Results Of 46 patients, 13 had pneumatic dilation only, 26 had hydrostatic dilation only, and 7 had pneumatic dilation after failed hydrostatic dilation. Clinical success was not significantly different among the 3 groups with the success rates of 30.8%, 57.6%, and 57.1% (P = .25) after single dilation and 61.5%, 63.6%, and 71.4% (P = .90) after serial dilations in the pneumatic group, hydrostatic group, and pneumatic after failed hydrostatic group, respectively. Patients who failed hydrostatic balloon dilation (n = 7) had a success rate of 71.4% with subsequent pneumatic dilation. Two serious adverse events were observed in the pneumatic group, whereas none were observed in the hydrostatic group. A meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 360 patients demonstrated higher clinical success with single pneumatic balloon dilation compared with hydrostatic balloon dilation (62.2% versus 36.4%; P = .007) with higher adverse events (3 versus 0 events). Conclusions Hydrostatic balloon dilation should be considered as an initial modality for GSS given its acceptable success rate and high safety profile. In those who fail hydrostatic balloon dilation, a subsequent step-up approach to pneumatic balloon dilation or revisional surgery should be attempted.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
阿琬完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
臭鼬完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
1秒前
1秒前
jj发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
MIN完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
2秒前
2秒前
3秒前
梁钋瑞完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
OVERLXRD发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
ZPS完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
崔城发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
凶狠的碧琴应助Lxx采纳,获得10
4秒前
无语的从云完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
研友_ZbbVlZ发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
乐乐应助从容的流沙采纳,获得10
6秒前
dateline完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
轻松傲薇完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
7秒前
teamguichu发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
朝阳月完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
7秒前
7秒前
Wangxin发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
云淡风轻发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
XXX发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
8秒前
Jasper应助aliderichang采纳,获得10
9秒前
yuzhu完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
jj完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
Jensen完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
10秒前
10秒前
10秒前
10秒前
shice951229完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
华仔应助_Q七采纳,获得50
11秒前
Yhhh完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Picture this! Including first nations fiction picture books in school library collections 2000
The Cambridge History of China: Volume 4, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906 AD, Part Two 1500
Cowries - A Guide to the Gastropod Family Cypraeidae 1200
Quality by Design - An Indispensable Approach to Accelerate Biopharmaceutical Product Development 800
ON THE THEORY OF BIRATIONAL BLOWING-UP 666
Signals, Systems, and Signal Processing 610
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 计算机科学 物理 内科学 复合材料 催化作用 物理化学 光电子学 电极 细胞生物学 基因 无机化学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 6391299
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 8206368
关于积分的说明 17369979
捐赠科研通 5444953
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2878705
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1855192
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1698461