These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Surgical versus endoscopic gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: a retrospective multicentric comparative study of technical and clinical success.
    Author: Martinet E, Gonzalez JM, Thobois M, Hamouda I, Hardwigsen J, Chopinet S, Pauleau G, Vanbiervliet G, Onana P, Moutardier V, Gasmi M, Barthet M, Birnbaum DJ.
    Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg; 2024 Jun 20; 409(1):192. PubMed ID: 38900214.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Gastric 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. METHODS: Between 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. RESULTS: Of 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). CONCLUSION: EUS-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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]