Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Autor(a) principal: Brito,Sara Oliveira de
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Libânio,Diogo, Pinto,Cláudia Martins Marques, Teixeira,João Pedro Pinho Osório de Araújo, Teixeira,João Paulo Meireles de Araújo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452023000100004
• topic: Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Laparoscopic resection; Subepithelial lesions; Meta-analysis

Abstract Background and Aims: Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) combines advantages of endoscopy and laparoscopy in order to resect upper gastrointestinal lesions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LECS in patients with EGJ (esophagogastric junction), gastric and duodenal lesions, as well as to compare LECS with pure endoscopic and pure laparoscopic procedures. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched. Efficacy (R0, recurrence) and safety (conversion rate, procedure and hospitalization time, adverse events, mortality) outcomes were extracted and pooled (odds ratio or mean difference) using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and heterogeneity by Cochran’s Q test and I2 . Subgroup analysis according to location was performed. Results: This meta-analysis included 24 studies/1,336 patients (all retrospective cohorts). No significant differences were found between LECS and preexisting techniques (endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/laparoscopy) regarding any outcomes. However, there was a trend to shorter hospitalization time, longer procedure duration, and fewer adverse events in LECS versus Laparoscopy and ESD. R0 tended to be higher in the LECS group. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in gastric versus EGJ lesions (mean 7.3 vs. 13.7 days, 95% CI: 6.6-7.9 vs. 8.9-19.3). There were no significant differences in conversion rate, adverse events, or mean procedural time according to location. There was a trend to higher conversion rate and longer procedure durations in EGJ and higher rate of adverse events in duodenal lesions. Conclusion: LECS is a valid, safe, and effective treatment option in patients with EGJ, gastric, and duo-denal lesions, although existing studies are retrospective and prone to selection bias. Prospective studies are needed to assess if LECS is superior to established techniques. Key Messages: LECS is safe and effective in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal lesions, but there is no evidence of superiority over established techniques.