Martin Coronel

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

AIM To compare gallstones removal rate and incidence of bleeding, pancreatitis, use of mechanical lithotripsy, cholangitis and perforation between isolated sphincterotomy vs sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation of papilla in choledocholithiasis through the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. METHODS We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EMBASE database platforms in July 2017. The manual search included references of retrieved articles. We extracted data focusing on outcomes: The primary endpoint was the stones removal rate; Secondary endpoints were rates of pancreatitis, bleeding, use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), perforation and cholangitis. RESULTS Eleven RCTs with 1824 patients were included. EST was associated with more post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.03, -0.00), I2 = 33%, P = 0.05] and more need of mechanical lithotripsy in general [RE RD-0.16, CI (-0.25, -0.06), I2 = 90%, P = 0.002] and in subgroup analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [RE RD-0.20, CI (-0.38, -0.02), I2 = 82%, P = 0.003]. Incidence of pancreatitis [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.03, 0.01), I2 = 0, P = 0.36], cholangitis [FE RD-0.00, CI (-0.01, 0.01), I2 =0, P = 0.97] and perforation [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.00), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] was similar between the groups as well as similar stone removal rates in general [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.04), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] and pooled analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.02, 0.07), I2 = 11%, P = 0.31]. CONCLUSION Through meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials we found that isolated sphincterotomy was associated with more post-ERCP bleeding and more need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, there was no statistical difference in the stone removal rate between isolated sphincterotomy and sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation in the approach to remove gallstones.

Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Objectives  To compare the insufflation of CO 2 and ambient air in enteroscopy. Search sources  The investigators researched the electronic databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Central, LILACS, BVS, Scopus and Cinahl. The grey search was conducted in the base of theses of the University of São Paulo, books of digestive endoscopy and references of selected articles and in previous systematic revisions. Study eligibility criteria  The evaluation of eligibility was performed independently, in a non-blind manner, by two reviewers, firstly by title and abstract, followed by complete text. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus. Data collection and analysis method  Through the spreadsheet of data extraction, where one author extracted the data and a second author checked the extraction. Disagreements were resolved by debate between the two reviewers. The quality analysis of the studies was performed using the Jadad score. The software RevMan 5 version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. Results  Four randomized clinical trials were identified, totaling 473 patients submitted to enteroscopy and comparing insufflation of CO 2 and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO 2 insufflation was reduced, there was a significant difference in pain levels 1 hour after the procedure (95 % IC, –2.49 [–4.72, –0.26], P : 0.03, I 2 : 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, –3.05 [–5.92, –0.18], P : 0.04, I 2 : 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO 2 insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, –67.68 [–115.53, –19.84], P : 0.006, I 2 : 0 %). There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to the use of pethidine and to the oxygen saturation. Limitations  Restricted number of randomized clinical trials and nonuniformity of data were limitations to the analysis of the outcomes. Conclusion  The use of CO 2 as insufflation gas in enteroscopy reduces the pain levels 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure, in addition to the reduction of the sedation (propofol) dosage used.

Endoscopic polymer injection and endoluminal plication in treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: evaluation of long-term results

Background and study aims  Us of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has made endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) more efficient, with reduction in morbidity and complications. However, some patients persist with symptoms despite medical treatment and some are not compliant with it or cannot afford it for financial reasons, and thus they require non-pharmacological therapeutic options such as surgical fundoplication. Surgery may be effective in the short term, but there is related morbidity and concern about its long-term efficacy. The possibility of minimally invasive endoluminal surgeries has resulted in interest in and development of newly endoscopic devices. Good short-term results with surgical fundoplication lack of studies of is with long follow-up justify our interest in this study. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of endoscopic polymer injection and endoluminal full-thickness plication in the long-term control of GERD. Patients and methods  Forty-seven patients with GERD who underwent an endoscopic procedure were followed up for 60 months and evaluated for total response (RT), partial response (RP) and no response (SR) to endoscopic treatment with reintroduction of PPIs. Results  Twenty-one patients received polymer injection (G0) and 26 endoluminal plication (G1). The number of patients with no response to endoscopic treatment with reintroduction of PPIs increased in time for both techniques (G0 P  = 0.006; G1 P  < 0.001). There was symptomatic improvement up to 12 months, with progressive loss of this trending up to 60 months in G0 and G1 ( P  < 0.001). Health-related quality of life score (GERD-HRQL) demonstrated TR in G0 and G1 at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The 60-month analysis showed an increased number of patients with SR in both groups. The quality of life assessment (SF-36) showed benefit in G0 up to 3 months. G0 showed a higher rate of complications. There were no deaths. There was healing of esophagitis at 3 months in 45 % of patients in G0 and 40 % in G1. There was no improvement in manometric or pH findings. Conclusion  Endoscopic therapies were ineffective in controlling GERD in the long term.

Comparison between Carbon Dioxide and Air Insufflation in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based On Randomized Control Trials

Objectives: The colorectal cancer is a common and lethal neoplasia. Colonoscopy detects diseases in the initial stages decreasing the mortality. Pain and abdominal discomfort are usual complaints associated mainly with the use of air insufflation. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasingly utilized to augment tolerance and disposition to repeat the examination. Compare which insufflation method is related to less unpleasant symptoms, safer examination and best performance are objectives of the study. Methods: Electronic databases were accessed selecting only randomized controlled trials comparing insufflation with CO2 and ambient air in colonoscopy. The evaluated outcomes were pain, abdominal distension and flatulence, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation and total procedure time, volume of gas, CO2 measurement, and need of sedation or analgesia, and polyp detection rate. Results: Thirty randomized controlled trials were selected (4854 patients). Meta-analysis showed reduction in pain risk in the CO2 group immediately after the colonoscopy (Risk difference-RD 0.11[0.03, 0.19]), 1h (RD 0.29 [0.24, 0.34]), 3h (RD 0.22[0.11, 0.34]) and 6h (RD 0.21 [0.17, 0.26]) after colonoscopy. The reduction of flatulence risk 1h and 6h after the procedure was greater in CO2 group (RD 0.54 [0.43, 0.66] and RD 0.65[0.38,0.92], respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding pain during the procedure, pain and flatulence 24h after colonoscopy, abdominal bloating, request for medication, safety, gas volume, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, time to cecum and total procedure time. Conclusions: CO2 insufflation improves tolerance to colonoscopy, reducing pain and flatulence out to 6 hours following the procedure.