Background and study aims Transoral outlet reduction (TORe) is an endoscopic procedure used in patients with weight gain post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TORe with a full-thickness suturing device for treating patients with weight regain after RYGB. Patients and methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to March 2020). The primary outcomes assessed were technical success, absolute weight loss (AWL) and percent of total weight loss (% TWL) at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. The secondary outcomes assessed were pooled rate of adverse events (AEs), adverse event subtypes and association of size of gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) and percent TWL. Results Thirteen studies on 850 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success was 99.89 %. The absolute weight loss (kg) at 3, 6, and 12 months was 6.14, 10.15, and 7.14, respectively. The percent TWL at 3, 6, and 12 months was 6.69, 11.34, and 8.55, respectively. The pooled rate of AE was 11.4 % with abdominal pain being the most common adverse event. The correlation coefficient (r) was –0.11 between post TORe GJA size and weight loss at 12 months. Conclusion TORe is an endoscopic procedure that is safe and technically feasible for post RYGB with weight gain.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and study aim: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy (ERAT) is an endoscopic procedure for management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA). In addition to being minimally invasive, it has added advantage of preservation of appendix and simultaneous inspection of colon. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on ERAT in patients with AA. Patients and methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases (from inception through Jan 2022) to identify the studies reporting ERAT in AA. The primary outcome was to evaluate the overall clinical and technical success of ERAT. The secondary outcome was to study the total and individual adverse events. The meta-analysis was performed using Der Simonian and Laird random effect model. Results 7 studies reporting on 298 patients were included. Majority of the patient population were males (55.3%), with mean age of 31±12.39 years. The pooled technical success rate was 99.36% (95% CI 97.61-100, I2=0) and the pooled clinical success rate was 99.29% (95% CI 97.48-100, I2=0). The pooled adverse event rate was 0.19 % (95% CI 0-1.55, I2=0). The most common adverse event was perforation with 0.19 % (95% CI 0-1.55, I2=0). Recurrence rate was 6.01 % (95% CI 2.9-9.93, I2=20.10). Average length of procedure was 41.1±7.16 min. Low heterogeneity was noted in in our meta-analysis. Conclusion: ERAT is a safe procedure with high clinical and technical success in patients with acute appendicitis. Further randomized controlled trials should be performed to assess utility of ERAT in acute appendicitis as compared to laparoscopic appendectomy.

Background and study aims Following colorectal surgery, anastomotic dehiscence and leak formation has an incidence of 2 % to 7 %. Endo-SPONGE has been applied in the management of anastomatic leaks (ALs) after colorectal surgery. This is the first systematic review and meta analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Endo-SPONGE in the management of colorectal ALs. Patients and methods The primary outcomes assessed were the technical and clinical success of Endo-SPONGE placement in colorectal ALs. The secondary outcomes assessed were the overall adverse events (AEs) and the AE subtypes. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with 95 % confidence interval (C. I.). The statistical analysis was done using STATA v16.1 software (StataCorp, LLC College Station, Texas, United States). Results The analysis included 17 independent cohort studies with a total of 384 patients. The rate of technical success was 99.86 % (95 % CI: 99.2 %, 100 %; P = 0.00; I2  = 70.69 %) and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 84.99 % (95 % CI: 77.4 %, 91.41 %; P = 0.00; I2  = 68.02 %). The calculated pooled rate of adverse events was 7.6 % (95 % CI: 3.99 %, 12.21 %; P = 0.03; I2  = 42.5 %) with recurrent abscess formation and bleeding being the most common AEs. Moderate to substantial heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis. Conclusions Endoscopic vacuum therapy appears to be a minimally invasive, safe, and effective treatment modality for patients with a significant colorectal leak without any generalized peritonitis with high clinical and technical success rates and a low rate of adverse events. Further prospective or randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

No abstract

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided ethanol ablation has emerged as an alternative method for pancreatic lesions. Recently, paclitaxel was added to ethanol to assess ablative effects in pancreatic lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on EUS-guided ethanol ablation (EUS E) versus EUS-guided ethanol with paclitaxel (EUS EP) ablation for the management of pancreatic lesions. Methods: Comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases (from inception to May 2020). The primary outcome evaluated complete ablation of the lesions radiologically and the secondary outcome evaluated adverse events (AEs). Results: Fifteen studies on 524 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled complete ablation rate was 58.89% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 38.72–77.80, I 2 = 91.76%) and 55.99% (95% CI = 44.66–67.05, I 2 = 0) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups ( P = 0.796), respectively. The pooled AE rates were 13.92% (95% CI = 4.71–26.01, I 2 = 83.43%) and 31.62% (95% CI = 3.36–68.95, I 2 = 87.9%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups ( P = 0.299), respectively. The most common AE was abdominal pain at 7.27% (95% CI = 1.97–14.6, I 2 = 68.2%) and 12.44% (95% CI = 0.00–39.24, I 2 = 81.1%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups ( P = 0.583), respectively. Correlation coefficient (r) was ‒0.719 ( P = 0.008) between complete ablation and lesion size. Conclusion: Complete ablation rates were comparable among both groups. AE rates were higher in the EUS EP group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

No abstract