Objective To systematically evaluate efficacy and safety of endoscopic pneumatic dilation and endoscopic stent placement in treatment of achalasia. Methods Eligible studies comparing the pneumatic dilation and the stent placement in treatment of achalasia were identified by an electronic search of MedLine, Embase, ISI Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, China Biology Medicine and Wanfang databases from inception to December 2015. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 4 randomized controlled trials including 343 patients with achalasia (176 cases in the pneumatic dilation group, 167 cases in the stent placement group) were subjected to the final analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the postoperative short term symptom relief rate had no significant difference between the pneumatic dilation group and the stent placement group 〔RR=1.03, 95%CI (0.95, 1.12),P=0.53〕, the postoperative 2-year symptom relief rate of the stent placement group was significantly higher than that of the pneumatic dilation group 〔RR=0.77, 95%CI (0.64, 0.92),P=0.005〕, but the complications rate of the stent placement group was significantly higher as compared with the pneumatic dilation group 〔RR=0.52, 95%CI (0.40, 0.69),P<0.000 01〕 too. Conclusions Although this meta-analysis has some shortcomings, preliminary results show that short term effects of pneumatic dilation and stent placement in treatment of achalasia are effective, long term effect of stent placement in treatment of achalasia is better as compared with pneumatic dilation, but it’s complications rate is higher. So in clinical diagnosis and treatment, effect, risk, patient’s physical condition, and demand should be considered together; during treatment, we should pay attention to adverse reactions and prepare adequately in order to reducing complications. When complications occur, we should take timely symptomatic treatment.
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety in the treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction between gastrojejunostomy (GJ) and self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement.MethodsThe relevant literatures of efficacy and safety of GJ and SEMS placement in the treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinical Trial, VIP, CNKI, Wanfang Data databases. The data were extracted and evaluated by the RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 12 articles with 1 505 patients were included, of which 620 underwent the GJ (GJ group) and 885 underwent the SEMS placement (SEMS group); 3 RCTs, 9 non-RCTs. The meta-analysis results showed: the length of hospital stay [MD=5.83, 95%CI (4.24, 7.42), P<0.000 01] and time of postoperative recovery diet [MD=3.41, 95%CI (1.79, 5.03), P<0.000 1] of the SEMS group were significantly shorter than those of the GJ group; Although the incidence of complications of the GJ group was significantly higher than that of the SEMS group [OR=1.85, 95%CI (1.27, 2.70), P=0.001], the technical success rate [OR=2.72, 95%CI (1.13, 6.53), P=0.03] and clinical success rate [OR=1.86, 95%CI (1.35, 2.57), P=0.000 2] were higher and the survival time was longer [MD=38.31, 95%CI (28.98, 47.64), P<0.000 01] of the GJ group as compared with the SEMS group.ConclusionsSEMS placement is more effective in recovering dietary capacity, length of hospital stay, and incidence of complications, while GJ is more effective in survival time, technical success rate, and clinical success rate. In clinical practice, we could choose different surgical method according to patient situation.