Home > DARE Reviews > A systematic review of methods to...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

A systematic review of methods to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Review published: 2010.

Bibliographic details: Ly J, O'Grady G, Mittal A, Plank L, Windsor JA.  A systematic review of methods to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surgical Endoscopy 2010; 24(2): 290-297. [PubMed: 19551436]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to palliating patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ). More recently endoscopic stenting (ES) and laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ) have been introduced as alternatives, and some studies have suggested improved outcomes with ES. The aim of this review is to compare ES with OGJ and LGJ in terms of clinical outcome.

METHOD: A systematic literature search and review was performed for the period January 1990 to May 2008. Original comparative studies were included where ES was compared with either LGJ or OGJ or both, for the palliation of malignant GOO.

RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (10 retrospective cohort studies, two randomised controlled trials and one prospective study). Compared with OGJ, ES resulted in an increased likelihood of tolerating an oral intake [odds ratio (OR) 2.6, p = 0.02], a shorter time to tolerating an oral intake (mean difference 6.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter post-procedural hospital stay (mean difference 11.8 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between 30-day mortality, complication rates or survival. There were an inadequate number of cases to quantitatively compare ES with LGJ.

CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates improved clinical outcomes with ES over OGJ for patients with malignant GOO. However, there is insufficient data to adequately compare ES with LGJ, which is the current standard for operative management. As these conclusions are based on observational studies only, future large well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be required to ensure the estimates of the relative efficacy of these interventions are valid.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 19551436

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...