-
Use of abdominal compression device in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
-
Yousaf Zafar, Ahmed Mustafa Rashid, Syed Sarmad Javaid, Ahmed Kamal Siddiqi, Adnan Zafar, Arsalan Zafar Iqbal, Jagpal Singh Klair, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
-
Clin Endosc 2023;56(4):446-452. Published online May 26, 2023
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.304
-
-
 Graphical Abstract
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material PubReader ePub
 - Background
/Aims: Colonoscopy for screening is associated with unpleasant experiences for patients, and abdominal compression devices have been developed to minimize these problems. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the therapeutic benefits of this strategy. This study examined the effects of using an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on the cecal intubation time (CIT), abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural changes.
Methods
We searched PubMed and Scopus (from inception to November 2021) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on CIT, abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural change. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) were calculated.
Results
Our pooled analysis of seven randomized controlled trials revealed that abdominal compression devices significantly reduced CIT (WMD, –0.76 [–1.49 to –0.03] minutes; p=0.04), abdominal compression (OR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.94; p=0.03), and postural changes (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27–0.78; p=0.004) during colonoscopy. However, our results did not show a significant change in patient comfort (WMD, –0.48; 95% CI, –1.05 to 0.08; p=0.09) when using an abdominal compression device.
Conclusions
Our findings demonstrate that employing an abdominal compression device may reduce CIT, abdominal compression, and postural change but have no impact on patient comfort.
-
3,304
View
-
122
Download
-
1
Web of Science
-
Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage of malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
-
Yousaf Zafar, Hafsa Azam, Muhammad Abdullah Bin Azhar, Fabeeha Shaheen, Syed Sarmad Javaid, Laila Manzoor, Muaaz Masood, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
-
Received July 3, 2024 Accepted September 24, 2024 Published online November 1, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.183
-
-
Abstract
PubReaderePub
- Background
/Aims: Malignant biliary obstruction is a major clinical challenge. We assessed the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compared with that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD).
Methods
We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing EUS-BD with ERCP or PTBD in treating malignant biliary obstruction. Using random-effects models, we synthesized risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A subgroup analysis was performed using a comparator (ERCP or PTBD).
Results
EUS-BD significantly reduced the risk of stent dysfunction (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33–0.64), with consistent results in subgroup analysis for ERCP (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35–0.84) and PTBD (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22–0.61). It also lowered the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07–0.83) and reduced tumor ingrowth or overgrowth risk (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11–0.65), even when compared to ERCP alone (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11–0.70). EUS-BD demonstrated a lower risk of adverse events compared to PTBD (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14–0.97) and reduced length of hospital stay (WMD, –1.03; 95% CI, –1.53 to –0.53) when compared to ERCP.
Conclusions
EUS-BD outperformed ERCP-BD and PTBD in reducing stent dysfunction, postprocedural pancreatitis, and tumor ingrowth or overgrowth.
|
KSGE
