PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes surrounding the efficacy and complication rate between different modalities of pyloromyotomy and gastric electrical stimulation (GES) in the treatment of gastroparesis.
METHODS: Comprehensive, computerized research was performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We additionally reviewed relevant articles, without any language limitations, published prior to April 15, 2020. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: Three studies totaling 196 participants who had received 4 interventions, including single per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP), double POP, laparoscopic pyloromyotomy, and GES, were eligible for analysis. Compared to single POP, double POP achieved a better clinical response with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.60, P = .04), while laparoscopic pyloromyotomy and GES showed no difference with a pooled RR of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74-1.08, P = .23) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-1.04, P = .13), respectively. As for the recurrence and complication rates, only GES showed a borderline significance of recurrence in comparison to single POP (RR 2.17, 95% CI, 1.00-4.71, P = .05), while there were no differences in the remainder of the comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: We conducted a detailed comparison of 3 modalities of pyloromyotomy and GES in the treatment of gastroparesis, with the results suggesting that double POP demonstrated better clinical success with similar recurrence and complication rates. In addition, GES may result in more recurrence amongst these interventions.
METHODS: Comprehensive, computerized research was performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We additionally reviewed relevant articles, without any language limitations, published prior to April 15, 2020. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: Three studies totaling 196 participants who had received 4 interventions, including single per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP), double POP, laparoscopic pyloromyotomy, and GES, were eligible for analysis. Compared to single POP, double POP achieved a better clinical response with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.60, P = .04), while laparoscopic pyloromyotomy and GES showed no difference with a pooled RR of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74-1.08, P = .23) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-1.04, P = .13), respectively. As for the recurrence and complication rates, only GES showed a borderline significance of recurrence in comparison to single POP (RR 2.17, 95% CI, 1.00-4.71, P = .05), while there were no differences in the remainder of the comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: We conducted a detailed comparison of 3 modalities of pyloromyotomy and GES in the treatment of gastroparesis, with the results suggesting that double POP demonstrated better clinical success with similar recurrence and complication rates. In addition, GES may result in more recurrence amongst these interventions.
摘要：
暂无翻译
