Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Azevedo,Isabel
Publication Date: 2023
Other Authors: Ortigão,Raquel, Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro, Bastos,Pedro, Silva,Rui, Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário, Libânio,Diogo
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000300018
Summary: Abstract Introduction: With the increase of esophageal and gastric cancer, surgery will be more often performed. Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared postoperative complications of gastroesophageal surgery. It can be managed by conservative, endoscopic (such as endoscopic vacuum therapy and stenting), or surgical methods, but optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare (a) endoscopic and surgical interventions and (b) different endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis, with search in three online databases for studies evaluating surgical and endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Results: A total of 32 studies comprising 1,080 patients were included. Compared with surgical intervention, endoscopic treatment presented similar clinical success, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay, but lower in-hospital mortality (6.4% [95% CI: 3.8-9.6%] vs. 35.8% [95% CI: 23.9-48.5%]. Endoscopic vacuum therapy was associated with a lower rate of complications (OR 0.348 [95% CI: 0.127-0.954]), shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference −14.77 days [95% CI: −26.57 to −2.98]), and time until AL resolution (17.6 days [95% CI: 14.1-21.2] vs. 39.4 days [95% CI: 27.0-51.8]) when compared with stenting, but there were no significant differences in terms of clinical success, mortality, reinterventions, or hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment, in particular endoscopic vacuum therapy, seems safer and more effective when compared with surgery. However, more robust comparative studies are need-ed, especially for clarifying which is the best treatment in specific situations (according to patient and leak characteristics).
id RCAP_5136e996031c5dbea28dbfab5005624f
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2341-45452023000300018
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical ManagementAnastomotic leakGastroesophageal cancerSurgical treatmentEndoscopic treatmentAbstract Introduction: With the increase of esophageal and gastric cancer, surgery will be more often performed. Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared postoperative complications of gastroesophageal surgery. It can be managed by conservative, endoscopic (such as endoscopic vacuum therapy and stenting), or surgical methods, but optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare (a) endoscopic and surgical interventions and (b) different endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis, with search in three online databases for studies evaluating surgical and endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Results: A total of 32 studies comprising 1,080 patients were included. Compared with surgical intervention, endoscopic treatment presented similar clinical success, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay, but lower in-hospital mortality (6.4% [95% CI: 3.8-9.6%] vs. 35.8% [95% CI: 23.9-48.5%]. Endoscopic vacuum therapy was associated with a lower rate of complications (OR 0.348 [95% CI: 0.127-0.954]), shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference −14.77 days [95% CI: −26.57 to −2.98]), and time until AL resolution (17.6 days [95% CI: 14.1-21.2] vs. 39.4 days [95% CI: 27.0-51.8]) when compared with stenting, but there were no significant differences in terms of clinical success, mortality, reinterventions, or hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment, in particular endoscopic vacuum therapy, seems safer and more effective when compared with surgery. However, more robust comparative studies are need-ed, especially for clarifying which is the best treatment in specific situations (according to patient and leak characteristics).Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2023-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000300018GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.30 n.3 2023reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000300018Azevedo,IsabelOrtigão,RaquelPimentel-Nunes,PedroBastos,PedroSilva,RuiDinis-Ribeiro,MárioLibânio,Diogoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:34:24Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452023000300018Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T13:21:12.998510Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
title Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
spellingShingle Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
Azevedo,Isabel
Anastomotic leak
Gastroesophageal cancer
Surgical treatment
Endoscopic treatment
title_short Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
title_full Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
title_fullStr Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
title_full_unstemmed Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
title_sort Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management
author Azevedo,Isabel
author_facet Azevedo,Isabel
Ortigão,Raquel
Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
Bastos,Pedro
Silva,Rui
Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário
Libânio,Diogo
author_role author
author2 Ortigão,Raquel
Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
Bastos,Pedro
Silva,Rui
Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário
Libânio,Diogo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Azevedo,Isabel
Ortigão,Raquel
Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
Bastos,Pedro
Silva,Rui
Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário
Libânio,Diogo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anastomotic leak
Gastroesophageal cancer
Surgical treatment
Endoscopic treatment
topic Anastomotic leak
Gastroesophageal cancer
Surgical treatment
Endoscopic treatment
description Abstract Introduction: With the increase of esophageal and gastric cancer, surgery will be more often performed. Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared postoperative complications of gastroesophageal surgery. It can be managed by conservative, endoscopic (such as endoscopic vacuum therapy and stenting), or surgical methods, but optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare (a) endoscopic and surgical interventions and (b) different endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis, with search in three online databases for studies evaluating surgical and endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Results: A total of 32 studies comprising 1,080 patients were included. Compared with surgical intervention, endoscopic treatment presented similar clinical success, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay, but lower in-hospital mortality (6.4% [95% CI: 3.8-9.6%] vs. 35.8% [95% CI: 23.9-48.5%]. Endoscopic vacuum therapy was associated with a lower rate of complications (OR 0.348 [95% CI: 0.127-0.954]), shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference −14.77 days [95% CI: −26.57 to −2.98]), and time until AL resolution (17.6 days [95% CI: 14.1-21.2] vs. 39.4 days [95% CI: 27.0-51.8]) when compared with stenting, but there were no significant differences in terms of clinical success, mortality, reinterventions, or hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment, in particular endoscopic vacuum therapy, seems safer and more effective when compared with surgery. However, more robust comparative studies are need-ed, especially for clarifying which is the best treatment in specific situations (according to patient and leak characteristics).
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023-06-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000300018
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000300018
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000300018
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.30 n.3 2023
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833593689248628736