Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mendonça, Ernesto Quaresma
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Bernardo, Wanderley Marques, Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de, Chaves, Dalton Marques, Kondo, André, Pu, Leonardo Zorrón Cheng Tao, Baracat, Felipe Iankelevich
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/110866
Resumo: The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different.
id USP-19_a7c705519472faa20ff7068088052037
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/110866
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different. Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2016-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/11086610.6061/clinics/2016(01)06Clinics; v. 71 n. 1 (2016); 28-35Clinics; Vol. 71 Núm. 1 (2016); 28-35Clinics; Vol. 71 No. 1 (2016); 28-351980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/110866/109254Copyright (c) 2016 Clinicsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMendonça, Ernesto QuaresmaBernardo, Wanderley MarquesMoura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux deChaves, Dalton MarquesKondo, AndréPu, Leonardo Zorrón Cheng TaoBaracat, Felipe Iankelevich2016-02-05T09:30:04Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/110866Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2016-02-05T09:30:04Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
spellingShingle Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mendonça, Ernesto Quaresma
title_short Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
author Mendonça, Ernesto Quaresma
author_facet Mendonça, Ernesto Quaresma
Bernardo, Wanderley Marques
Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de
Chaves, Dalton Marques
Kondo, André
Pu, Leonardo Zorrón Cheng Tao
Baracat, Felipe Iankelevich
author_role author
author2 Bernardo, Wanderley Marques
Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de
Chaves, Dalton Marques
Kondo, André
Pu, Leonardo Zorrón Cheng Tao
Baracat, Felipe Iankelevich
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mendonça, Ernesto Quaresma
Bernardo, Wanderley Marques
Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de
Chaves, Dalton Marques
Kondo, André
Pu, Leonardo Zorrón Cheng Tao
Baracat, Felipe Iankelevich
description The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/110866
10.6061/clinics/2016(01)06
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/110866
identifier_str_mv 10.6061/clinics/2016(01)06
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/110866/109254
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2016 Clinics
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2016 Clinics
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; v. 71 n. 1 (2016); 28-35
Clinics; Vol. 71 Núm. 1 (2016); 28-35
Clinics; Vol. 71 No. 1 (2016); 28-35
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1787713178802585600