共 50 条
Diverticular per oral endoscopic myotomy (DPOEM) for esophageal diverticular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
被引:12
|作者:
Mandavdhare, Harshal S.
[1
]
Praveen Kumar, M.
[2
]
Jha, Dayakrishna
[1
]
Kumar, Antriksh
[1
]
Sharma, Vishal
[1
]
Desai, Pankaj
[3
]
Shumkina, Lada
[4
]
Gupta, Pankaj
[5
]
Singh, Harjeet
[6
]
Dutta, Usha
[1
]
机构:
[1] Post Grad Inst Med Educ & Res, Dept Gastroenterol, Chandigarh 160012, India
[2] Post Grad Inst Med Educ & Res, Dept Pharmacol, Chandigarh, India
[3] Surat Inst Digest Sci, Surat, India
[4] Moscow Clin Sci Ctr, Endoscopy Dept, Moscow, Russia
[5] Post Grad Inst Med Educ & Res, Dept Radiodiag, Chandigarh, India
[6] Post Grad Inst Med Educ & Res, Dept Surg, Chandigarh, India
来源:
关键词:
Diverticulum;
Esophagus;
FESD;
D-POEM;
Success;
SUBMUCOSAL TUNNELING TECHNIQUE;
ZENKERS DIVERTICULUM;
SEPTUM DIVISION;
Z-POEM;
MANAGEMENT;
OUTCOMES;
D O I:
10.1007/s10388-021-00839-9
中图分类号:
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号:
摘要:
The traditional way to tackle Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) has been flexible endoscopic septum division (FESD). Recently, the concept of per oral endoscopic myotomy has been found useful for managing diverticular diseases of the esophagus and has been termed DPOEM. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of D-POEM in diverticular disease of the esophagus and to compare it with FESD. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase, for studies reporting clinical success, technical success and adverse events in D-POEM alone or D-POEM comparing with FESD. We computed pooled prevalence for D-POEM alone and risk ratio for D-POEM vs FESD using random effect method with inverse variance approach. Subgroup analysis for ZD, non-ZD and mixed diverticulum was conducted. Totally 19 studies including 341 patients were identified reporting on D-POEM. The pooled clinical, technical success and adverse event rates for D-POEM were 87.07%, 95.19% and 10.22%, respectively. The clinical success was significantly better than FESD while the technical success, adverse event rate, procedure time and length of hospital stay were comparable with FESD. The recurrence rate was negligible for D-POEM compared to FESD. On subgroup analysis by dividing into three groups of ZD, non-ZD and mixed, there was no difference between clinical, technical success and adverse event rate among the three groups. D-POEM is an effective and safe technique among both ZD and non-ZD patients and has better clinical success than FESD.
引用
收藏
页码:436 / 450
页数:15
相关论文