Endoscopic or laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a cumulative meta-analysis.
10.1097/CM9.0000000000001069
- VernacularTitle:Endoscopic or laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a cumulative meta-analysis
- Author:
Xian-Lei CAI
1
;
Xue-Ying LI
2
;
Chao LIANG
1
;
Yuan XU
1
;
Miao-Zun ZHANG
1
;
Wei-Ming YU
1
;
Xiu-Yang LI
3
Author Information
1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315000, China.
2. Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315000, China.
3. Department of Neurology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Institute of Neuroscience and Technology of Qiushi Academy for Advanced Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, China.
- Publication Type:Meta-Analysis
- MeSH:
Gastrectomy;
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors/surgery*;
Humans;
Laparoscopy;
Length of Stay;
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery*;
Postoperative Complications;
Stomach Neoplasms/surgery*;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2020;133(22):2731-2742
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Despite the recent large number of studies comparing endoscopic and laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (diameter ≤ 5 cm), the results remain conflicting. The objective of this work was to perform a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic resection vs. laparoscopic resection.
METHODS:The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched medical databases up to January 2020. Meta-analytical random or fixed effects models were used in pooled analyses. Meta-regression, cumulative meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to improve the accuracy of the conclusion. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results.
RESULTS:A total of 12 cohort studies with 1383 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic resection were identified, while three cohort studies with 167 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery were found. We found that endoscopic resection had shorter operation times (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.1 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -40.8 min to -13.4 min) and lengths of hospital stay (WMD = -1.43 d, 95% CI: -2.31 d to -0.56 d) than did laparoscopic resection. The results were stable and reliable. There were no significant differences in terms of blood loss, hospitalization costs, incidence of complications or recurrence rates. For tumor sizes 2 - 5 cm, endoscopic resection increased the risk of positive margins (relative risk [RR] = 5.78, 95% CI: 1.31 - 25.46). Although operation times for endoscopic resection were shorter than those of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (WMD = -41.03 min, 95% CI: -59.53 min to -22.54 min), there was a higher incidence of complications (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.57 - 10.34).
CONCLUSIONS:In general, endoscopic resection is an alternative method for gastric GISTs ≤ 5 cm. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery may work well in combination. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to validate or update these results.
