Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38900214›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024

Surgical versus endoscopic gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: a retrospective multicentric comparative study of technical and clinical success.

Eugénie Martinet, Jean-Michel Gonzalez, Maxime Thobois, Ilyes Hamouda, Jean Hardwigsen, Sophie Chopinet, Ghislain Pauleau, Geoffroy Vanbiervliet, Philippe Onana, Vincent Moutardier and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Eugénie MartinetDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital d'Instruction des Armées Laveran, Marseille, France.
Jean-Michel GonzalezAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France.
Maxime ThoboisDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hôpital L'Archet 2, Nice, France.
Ilyes HamoudaPublic Health Laboratory of the Faculty of Medical and Paramedical Sciences; Epidemiology and Health Economics Department, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France.
Jean HardwigsenAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France.
Sophie ChopinetAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France.
Ghislain PauleauDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital d'Instruction des Armées Laveran, Marseille, France.
Geoffroy VanbiervlietDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hôpital L'Archet 2, Nice, France.
Philippe OnanaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hôpital L'Archet 2, Nice, France.
Vincent MoutardierAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France.
Mohamed GasmiAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France.
Marc BarthetAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France.
David Jérémie BirnbaumAPHM Digestive Department, Marseille, France. david.birnbaum@ap-hm.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is mainly due to advanced malignant disease. GOO can be treated by surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE), endoscopic enteral stenting (EES), or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) to improve the quality of life.

methodsBetween 2009 and 2022, patients undergoing SGE or EUS-GE for GOO were included at three centers. Technical and clinical success rates, post-procedure adverse events (AEs), length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause mortality, and recurrence of GOO were retrospectively analyzed and compared between SGE and EUS-GE. Predictive factors for technical and clinical failure after SGE and EUS-GE were identified.

resultsOf the 97 patients included, 56 (57.7%) had an EUS-GE and 41 (42.3%) had an SGE for GOO, with 62 (63.9%) GOO due to malignancy and 35 (36.1%) to benign disease. The median follow-up time was 13,4 months (range 1 days-106 months), with no difference between the two groups (p = 0.962). Technical (p = 0.133) and clinical (p = 0.229) success rates, severe morbidity (p = 0.708), 30-day all-cause mortality (p = 0.277) and GOO recurrence (p = 1) were similar. EUS-GE had shorter median procedure duration (p < 0.001), lower post-procedure ileus rate (p < 0.001), and shorter median LOS (p < 0.001) than SGE. In univariate analysis, no risk factors for technical or clinical failure in SGE were identified and abdominal pain reported before the procedure was a risk factor for technical failure in the EUS-GE group. No risk factor for clinical failure was identified for EUS-GE. In the subgroup of GOO due to benign disease, SGE was associated with better technical success (p = 0.035) with no difference in clinical success rate compared to EUS-GE (p = 1).

conclusionEUS-GE provides similar long-lasting symptom relief as SGE for GOO whether for benign or malignant disease. SGE may still be indicated in centers with limited experience with EUS-GE or may be reserved for patients in whom endoscopic technique fails.

Indexed as

Gastric Outlet ObstructionGastroenterostomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEndosonographyFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeBenign diseaseEndoscopyGastric outlet obstructionGastroenterostomyMalignant diseaseOutcome

Identifiers

PMID38900214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.