Ramai, Daryl

Abstract Background and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation in esophageal myotomy length is not well known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of short versus standard myotomy length in patients with achalasia. Patients and methods We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2020 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of achalasia patients who underwent short compared with standard esophageal myotomy. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success, GERD outcomes, and adverse events with the two techniques. Results 5 studies with 474 patients were included in the final analysis (short myotomy group 214, standard myotomy group 260). There was no difference in clinical success (OR 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–2.52; I2 0 %; P = 0.69), postoperative symptomatic GERD (OR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.44–1.74; I2 29 %; P = 0.70), and overall adverse events (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.19–1.38; I2 40 %; P = 0.19), between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis as determined by endoscopy was lower in the short myotomy group (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.24–1.03; I2 0 %; P = 0.06). Conclusion Our analysis showed that performing POEM with short esophageal myotomy in achalasia was as safe and effective as standard myotomy, with lower incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis.

Abtract Background and study aims Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % confidence interval. Results Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I2 = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I2 = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I2 = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I2 = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I2 = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I2 = 35), p = 0.001. Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO.

There are limited and discordant results on the comparison between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, based on a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). A computerized bibliographic search was performed on the main databases throughout August 2020. The primary outcome was the complete response rate, while survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), disease-free survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), local and distant recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and number of treatment sessions were the secondary outcomes. Seven RCTs enrolling 921 patients were included. No difference in terms of complete response between the two treatments was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.02). Survival rates were constantly similar, with RRs ranging from 1.05 (0.96–1.15) at 1 year to 0.91 (0.81–1.03) at 5 years. While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA (RR 0.70, 0.43–1.14), distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA (RR 0.60, 0.39–0.92). Disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups with RR 1.00 (0.96–1.04), 0.94 (0.84–1.06), and 1.06 (0.93–1.21), respectively. On the other hand, RR for disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA (3.66, 1.32–42.27). Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments (RR 1.06, 0.48–2.34), with bleeding and hematoma representing the most frequent complications. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials.