Intraductal Radiofrequency Ablation Followed by Locoregional Tumor Treatments for Treating Occluded Biliary Stents in Non-Resectable Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Single-Institution Experience

Objectives

To determine the safety and feasibility of intraductal radiofrequency ablation (RFA) followed by locoregional tumor treatments in patients with non-resectable malignant biliary obstruction and stent re-occlusion.

Methods

Fourteen patients with malignant biliary obstruction and blocked metal stents were studied retrospectively. All had intraductal RFA followed by locoregional tumor treatments and were monitored clinically and radiologically. The practicality, safety, postoperative complications, jaundice remission, stent patency and survival time were analyzed.

Results

Combination treatment was successful for all patients. There were no severe complications during RFA or local treatments. All patients had stent patency restored, with a decline in serum bilirubin. Three patients had recurrent jaundice by 195, 237 and 357 days; two patients underwent repeat intraductal RFA; and one required an internal-external biliary drain. The average stent patency time was 234 days (range 187-544 days). With a median follow-up of 384 days (range 187-544 days), six patients were alive, while eight had died. There was no mortality at 30 days. The 3, 6, 12 and 18 month survival rates were 100%, 100%, 64.3% and 42.9%, respectively.

Conclusion

Intraductal RFA followed by locoregional tumor treatments for occluded metal stents is safe and practically feasible and potential increase stent patency and survival times.     

Malignant Ureteral Obstruction: Functional Duration of Metallic versus Polymeric Ureteral Stents

Background

Ureteral obstruction caused by extrinsic compression is often associated with intra-abdominal cancers. Internal drainage with ureteral stents is typically the first-line therapy to relieve such obstructions. Novel designs of ureteral stents made of different materials have been invented to achieve better drainage. In this study, we described the functional outcomes of a Resonance metallic ureteral stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, USA) in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction and compare the functional duration of Resonance stents with regular polymeric stents in the same cohort.

Methods

Cancer patients who received polymeric stents and subsequent Resonance stents for ureteral obstruction between July 2009 and November 2012 were included in a chart review. Stent failure was detected by clinical symptoms, imaging studies, and renal function tests. The functional durations of each stent were calculated, and possible factors affecting stent patency were investigated.

Results

A total of 50 stents were successfully inserted into 50 ureteral units in 42 patients with malignant ureteral obstruction. There were 7 antegrade stents and 43 retrograde stents. There were no major complications. Stent-related symptoms were similar in both kinds of stents. After polymeric stents were replaced with Resonance metallic stents, hydronephrosis subsided or remained stable in 90% (45/50) of the ureteral units. Serum creatinine decreased or remained stable in 90% (38/42) of these patients. The Resonance stent exhibited a mean increase in functional duration of 4 months compared with the polymeric stents (p<0.0001), and 50% (25/50) of the Resonance stents exhibited a significant increase in functional duration (more than 3 months). Pre-operative serum creatinine < 2 was associated with a substantial increase in stent duration.

Conclusions

Resonance stents are effective and safe in relieving malignant ureteral obstructions after polymeric stents failure. Resonance stents can provide a longer functional duration than polymeric stents and should be offered as an option for internal drainage.     

Self-Expandable Metal Stents for Persisting Esophageal Variceal Bleeding after Band Ligation or Injection-Therapy: A Retrospective Study

Background and Study Aims

Despite a pronounced reduction of lethality rates due to upper gastrointestinal bleeding, esophageal variceal bleeding remains a challenge for the endoscopist and still accounts for a mortality rate of up to 40% within the first 6 weeks. A relevant proportion of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding remains refractory to standard therapy, thus making a call for additional tools to achieve hemostasis. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) incorporate such a tool.

Methods

We evaluated a total number of 582 patients admitted to our endoscopy unit with the diagnosis “gastrointestinal bleeding” according to our documentation software between 2011 and 2014. 82 patients suffered from esophageal variceal bleeding, out of which 11 cases were refractory to standard therapy leading to SEMS application. Patients with esophageal malignancy, fistula, or stricture and a non-esophageal variceal bleeding source were excluded from the analysis. A retrospective analysis reporting a series of clinically relevant parameters in combination with bleeding control rates and adverse events was performed.

Results

The initial bleeding control rate after SEMS application was 100%. Despite this success, we observed a 27% mortality rate within the first 42 days. All of these patients died due to non-directly hemorrhage-associated reasons. The majority of patients exhibited an extensive demand of medical care with prolonged hospital stay. Common complications were hepatic decompensation, pulmonary infection and decline of renal function. Interestingly, we found in 7 out of 11 patients (63.6%) stent dislocation at time of control endoscopy 24 h after hemostasis or at time of stent removal. The presence of hiatal hernia did not affect obviously stent dislocation rates. Refractory patients had significantly longer hospitalization times compared to non-refractory patients.

Conclusions

Self-expandable metal stents for esophageal variceal bleeding seem to be safe and efficient after failed standard therapy. Stent migration appeared to be a common incident that did not lead to reactivation of bleeding in any of our patients. SEMS should be considered a reasonable treatment option for refractory esophageal variceal bleeding after treatment failure of ligature and sclerotherapy and non-availability of or contraindication for other measures (e.g. TIPS).     

Efficacy and Safety of Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis

Backgrounds

Drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation DES. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable polymer DES.

Methods

Systematic database searches of MEDLINE (1950 to June 2013), EMBASE (1966 to June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 6 of 12, June 2013), and a review of related literature were conducted. All randomized controlled trials comparing biodegradable polymer BES versus durable polymer DES were included.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials investigating 11,015 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with the biodegradable polymer BES and the durable polymer DES (Relative risk [RR], 0.970; 95% CI, 0.848–1.111; p = 0.662). However, biodegradable polymer BES was associated with reduced risk of very late ST compared with the durable polymer DES, while the risk of early or late ST was similar (RR for early or late ST, 1.167; 95% CI 0.755–1.802; p = 0.487; RR 0.273; 95% CI 0.115–0.652; p = 0.003; p for interaction = 0.003).

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, treatments with biodegradable polymer BES did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events, but demonstrated a significantly lower risk of very late ST when compared to durable polymer DES. This conclusion requires confirmation by further studies with long-term follow-up.

PROSPERO register number

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004364#.UnM2lfmsj6J     

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.

Core tip

To date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.     

Impact of Carcinomatosis on Clinical Outcomes after Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction

BackgroundIt is still unclear whether the peritoneal carcinomatosis had a negative effect on the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Although carcinomatosis may be associated with the development of multifocal gastrointestinal (GI) tract obstruction or decreased bowel movement, previous studies investigated the occurrence of stent failure only and thus had limitation in evaluating clinical outcomes of patients with carcinomatosis.MethodsBetween 2009 and 2013, 155 patients (88 patients without carcinomatosis and 67 patients with carcinomatosis) underwent endoscopic SEMS placement for malignant GOO. Factors affecting clinical success and obstructive symptom-free survival (time period between SEMS placement and the recurrence of obstructive symptoms due to multifocal GI tract obstruction or decreased bowel movement as well as stent failure) were assessed.ResultsPatients with carcinomatosis showed higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale than those without carcinomatosis. Clinical success rates were 88.1% in patients with carcinomatosis and 97.7% in patients without carcinomatosis. In multivariate analysis, only ECOG scale was identified as an independent predictor of clinical success. During follow-up period, patients with carcinomatosis showed significantly shorter obstructive symptom-free survival than those without carcinomatosis. In multivariate analysis, the presence of carcinomatosis, chemotherapy or radiation therapy after SEMS placement, and obstruction site were identified as independent predictors of obstructive symptom-free survival. For patient without carcinomatosis, stent failure accounted for the recurrence of obstructive symptoms in 84.6% of cases. For patients with carcinomatosis, multifocal GI tract obstruction or decreased bowel movement accounted for 37.9% of cases with obstructive symptom recurrence and stent failure accounted for 44.8% of cases.ConclusionsCarcinomatosis predicts unfavorable long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing SEMS placement for malignant GOO. This is mainly due to the development of multifocal GI tract obstructions or decreased bowel movement as well as stent failure.     

Head-to-Head Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of 76 Studies

Background

The relative short-, long- and overall-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, Cypher) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, Taxus) in large head-to-head comparisons still remain to be defined.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for articles comparing outcomes of interest between SES and PES without language restriction. Short- (≤1 year), long- (>1 year), and overall-term (the longest follow-up of each study) outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Other outcomes of interest were target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction, all-cause death, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), restenosis and late lumen loss.

Results

Seventy-six studies including more than 15000 patients in randomized controlled trials and over 70000 patients in adjusted observational studies were included. At overall-term follow-up, SES significantly reduced TLR (relative risk [RR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–0.76), TVR (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54–0.83), MACE (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72–0.87), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73–0.99), in-segment restenosis (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38–0.65), and in-segment late lumen loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −0.19; 95% CI: −0.24–−0.14) in randomized controlled trials compared with PES. In addition, lower rates of death (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83–1.00), any stent thrombosis (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45–0.86), definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45–0.77) were found in patients receiving SES in adjusted observational studies. Largely similar results were found at short- and long-term follow-up, and in patients with diabetes, acute myocardial infarction or long lesions.

Conclusions

SES significantly reduced the short-, long- and overall-term risk of TLR/TVR, MACE, and restenosis, and overall-term risk of myocardial infarction in randomized controlled trials, as compared with PES. Lower rates of death and stent thrombosis were also observed in observational studies in SES-treated patients.     

Dacarbazine Combined Targeted Therapy versus Dacarbazine Alone in Patients with Malignant Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Malignant melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly form of skin cancer. Dacarbazine (DTIC) has been the approved first-line treatment for metastatic melanoma in routine clinical practice. However, response rates with single-agent DTIC are low. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DTIC with or without placebo and DTIC-based combination therapies in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma.

Methods

We searched from electronic databases such as The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO, EMBASE, Ovid, CNKI, and CBMDisc from 2003 to 2013. The primary outcome measures were overall response and 1-year survival, and the secondary outcome measurements were adverse events.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2,481 patients were included in the meta-analysis. DTIC-based combination therapies was superior to DTIC alone in overall response (combined risk ratio [RR]  = 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27–2.01) and 1-year survival (combined RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.14–1.39). Patients with DTIC-based combination therapies had higher incidence of adverse events including nausea (combined RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.10–1.36), vomiting (combined RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.41–2.12) and neutropenia (combined RR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.42–2.16) compared to the group for DTIC alone.

Conclusion

These data suggested that DTIC-based combination therapies could moderately improve the overall response and the 1-year survival but increased the incidence of adverse events. Further large-scale, high-quality, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.     

恶性胆道梗阻患者所行经皮穿刺肝内胆管引流术中成功置入金属支架的术前影响因素分析

目的:探讨恶性胆道梗阻患者行PTBD(Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage)术中金属支架置入成功率的影响因素。方法:回顾性搜集2010年10月-2017年1月上海市第一人民医院收治的因患有近端恶性胆道梗阻行PTBD术患者的相关临床资料。比较不同原发病因患者支架置入情况。根据患者支架置入是否成功将其分为支架组和非支架组,比较患者的一般临床特征。结果:胰腺癌、胃癌和胆囊癌为本研究中数量上前3位的肿瘤,将以上3组分别按照支架置入数行x~2检验,其中胰腺癌(n=18,支架=6)和胃癌(n=14,支架=11)有统计学意义。将50例患者分为支架组(n=28)和非支架组(n=22),组间比较差异有统计学意义的因素包括:白细胞计数(支架组=6.40±3.40×10~9/L,非支架组=10.74±6.41×10~9/L),中性粒细胞计数(支架组=4.90±3.06×10~9/L,非支架组=8.92±6.25×10~9/L),胆道感染(支架组=9,非支架组=15)。进一步将该50例患者分为6组:胰腺癌-胆道感染组、胃癌-胆道感染组、其他肿瘤-胆道感染组、胰腺癌+胆道感染组、胃癌+胆道感染组、其他肿瘤+胆道感染组。将以上6组分别按照支架置入数行x~2检验,胰腺癌+胆道感染组(n=11,支架=1,P=0.001)有统计学意义。结论:PTBD术对于恶性胆道梗阻是一种有效的姑息治疗手段。胆道感染是PTBD术中支架置入成功的不利因素,胰腺癌合并胆道感染会显著降低PTBD术中支架置入成功率。     

Regional versus General Anesthesia for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of regional anesthesia (RA) and general anesthesia (GA) for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL).ResultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) involving 2270 patients were included. Patients receiving RA were associated with shorter operative time (−6.22 min; 95%CI, −9.70 to −2.75; p = 0.0005), lower visual analgesic score on the first and third postoperative day (WMD, −2.62; 95%CI, −3.04 to −2.19; p < 0.00001 WMD, −0.38; 95%CI, −0.58 to −0.18; p = 0.0002), less analgesic requirements (WMD, −59.40 mg; 95%CI, −78.39 to −40.40; p<0.00001), shorter hospitalization (WMD, −0.36d; 95%CI, −0.66 to −0.05; p = 0.02), less blood transfusion (RR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.41 to 0.93; p = 0.02), fewer modified Clavion-Dindo Grade II (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.37 to 0.83; p = 0.005), Grade III or above postoperative complications (RR, 0.51; 95%CI, 0.33 to 0.77; p = 0.001), and potential benefits of less fever (RR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.61 to 1.02; p = 0.07), nausea or vomiting (RR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.20 to 1.46; p = 0.23), whereas more intraoperative hypotension (RR, 3.13; 95%CI, 1.76 to 5.59; p = 0.0001) when compared with patients receiving GA. When nRCTs were excluded, most of the results were stable but the significant differences were no longer detectable in blood transfusion, Grade II and more severe complications. No significant difference in the total postoperative complications and stone-free rate were found.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that both RA and GA can provide safe and effective anesthesia for PNL in carefully evaluated and selected patients. Each anesthesia technique has its own advantages but some aspects still remain unclear and need to be explored in future studies.     

Robotic versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Aim

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge was performed. Systematic review was carried out to identify studies comparing robotic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were also analyzed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the surgery. A fixed effects model or a random effects model was utilized according to the heterogeneity.

Results

Four studies involving 5780 patients with 520 (9.00%) cases of robotic gastrectomy and 5260 (91.00%) cases of open gastrectomy were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy has a significantly longer operation time (weighted mean differences (WMD) =92.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 55.63 to 129.12, P<0.00001), lower blood loss (WMD: -126.08, 95% CI: -189.02 to -63.13, P<0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.87; 95% CI: -4.17 to -1.56; P<0.0001). No statistical difference was noted based on the rate of overall postoperative complication, wound infection, bleeding, number of harvested lymph nodes, anastomotic leakage and postoperative mortality rate.

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that robotic gastrectomy is a better alternative technique to open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, more prospective, well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcome.     

Efficacy and Safety of Talc Pleurodesis for Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Talc pleurodesis has been widely used to control malignant pleural effusion; however, it is still not clear whether talc pleurodesis is more effective than other local therapies. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of talc pleurodesis in the management of malignant pleural effusion.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for English-language studies of clinical controlled trials comparing talc pleurodesis with control therapies until August 8, 2013. Success rate and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. Relative risks were estimated using random- or fixed- effects model and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I² test.

Results

Twenty trials involving 1,525 patients with malignant pleural effusion were included. The success rate of talc pleurodesis was significantly higher than that of control therapies (relative risk, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.45; p = 0.035) with similar adverse events. In addition, thoracoscopic talc poudrage was more effective than bedside talc slurry (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.23; p = 0.026).

Conclusions

The current evidences suggested the benefit for talc pleurodesis in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion. Talc pleurodesis, especially thoracoscopic talc poudrage pleurodesis, should be performed in patients with malignant pleural effusion, especially those with life-expectancy longer than one month.     

Comparing the Clinical Outcomes between Drug Eluting Stents and Bare Metal Stents in Patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundSeveral studies have shown Drug Eluting Stents (DES) to be better compared to Bare Metal Stents (BMS) in patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Since, the adverse clinical outcomes in patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (ITDM) implanted with DES and BMS have not been previously studied, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes in similar patients with cardiovascular diseases, treated with DES and BMS.MethodsRandomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with DES and BMS were searched from PubMed and EMBASE databases. Outcome data for the patients with ITDM were carefully extracted. Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACEs), mortality, Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR), Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR), Myocardial Infarction (MI) and Stent Thrombosis (ST) were considered as the clinical endpoints for this analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsTen RCTs consisting of 830 patients with ITDM (477 patients in the DES group and 353 patients in the BMS group) from a total number of 9,141 patients were included in this analysis. During a follow-up period from one month to one year, MACEs were not increased with the use of DES in these patients with ITDM. At 9 months, MACEs were significantly lower in the DES group with OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23–0.72; P = 0.002 with no increase in mortality. TVR and TLR also favored the DES group with OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22–0.88, P = 0.02 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.53; P = 0.0001 respectively at 9 months, and OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23–0.94, P = 0.03 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.55; P = 0.0003 respectively at one year. Results for MI, and ST were not statistically significant.ConclusionCompared to BMS, DES were associated with a significantly lower rate of repeated revascularization, without any increase in MACEs or mortality in these patients with ITDM during a follow up period of one year. However, due to the very small population size, further studies with a larger number of randomized patients are required to completely solve this issue.     

Radiofrequency Ablation versus Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: A Meta-Analysis

Background

No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has yet been performed to provide the evidence to clarify the therapeutic debate on liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The meta-analysis was performed to summarize the evidence mostly from retrospective clinical trials and to investigate the effect of LR and RFA.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Systematic literature search of clinical studies was carried out to compare RFA and LR for CLM in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library Central databases. The meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio (RR) and random effect model, in which 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for RR were calculated. Primary outcomes were the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years plus mortality and morbidity. 1 prospective study and 12 retrospective studies were finally eligible for meta-analysis. LR was significantly superior to RFA in 3 -year OS (RR 1.377, 95% CI: 1.246–1.522); 5-year OS (RR: 1.474, 95%CI: 1.284–1.692); 3-year DFS (RR 1.735, 95% CI: 1.483–2.029) and 5-year DFS (RR 2.227, 95% CI: 1.823–2.720). The postoperative morbidity was higher in LR (RR: 2.495, 95% CI: 1.881–3.308), but no significant difference was found in mortality between LR and RFA. The data from the 3 subgroups (tumor<3 cm; solitary tumor; open surgery or laparoscopic approach) showed significantly better OS and DFS in patients who received surgical resection.

Conclusions/Significances

Although multiple confounders exist in the clinical trials especially the bias in patient selection, LR was significantly superior to RFA in the treatment of CLM, even when conditions limited to tumor<3 cm, solitary tumor and open surgery or laparoscopic (lap) approach. Therefore, caution should be taken when treating CLM with RFA before more supportive evidences for RFA from RCTs are obtained.     

Clopidogrel and Aspirin versus Aspirin Alone for Stroke Prevention: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose

Antiplatelet therapy is widely used for the primary or secondary prevention of stroke. Drugs like clopidogrel have emerged as alternatives for traditional antiplatelet therapy, and dual therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin is of particular interest. We conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review studies about dual therapy comparing monotherapy with aspirin alone.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials were searched in PubMed (1966-May, 2015), EMBASE (1947-May, 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1948-May, 2015), WHO International Clinical Trial (ICTRP) (2004-May, 2015), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM disc) (1978-May, 2015) and were included into the final analysis according to the definite inclusion criteria mentioned in the study selection section. Risk ratio (RR) was pooled with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data. The heterogeneity was considered significant if the χ² test was significant (P value < 0.10) or the I² > 50.00%. Subgroup analyses were carried out on the long and short time periods, the race and region.

Results

We included 5 studies involving 24,084 patients. A pooled analysis showed that dual therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin had a lower stroke incidence than monotherapy in both the short term and long term (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59–0.82, P <0.05; RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.98, P = 0.03, respectively). With regard to safety, dual therapy had a higher risk of bleeding than monotherapy for both periods (RR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.03–2.23, P = 0.04; RR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.32–1.79, P<0.05, respectively).

Conclusions

Dual therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin could be a preferable choice to prevent stroke in patients who have had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, as well as those who are at high risk for stroke. And the effect of dual therapy seems to be more obvious for short-term. However, it is associated with a higher risk of bleeding.     

Gap Arthroplasty versus Interpositional Arthroplasty for Temporomandibular Joint Ankylosis: A Meta-Analysis

Gap arthroplasty (GA) and interpositional arthroplasty (IA) are widely used for the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis (TMJA). However, controversy remains as to whether IA is superior to GA. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Web of science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for literature regarding these procedures (published from 1946 to July 28, 2014). A study was included in this analysis if it was: (1) a randomized controlled trial or non-randomized observational cohort study; (2) comparing the clinical outcomes between GA and IA with respect to the maximal incisal opening (MIO) and reankylosis; (3) with a follow-up period of at least 12 months. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Eight non-randomized observational cohort studies with 272 patients were included. All the statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 and Stat 12. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of reankylosis between the IA group (13/120) and the GA group (29/163) (RR= 0.67, 95% CI=0.38 to 1.16; Z=1.43, p=0.15). The IA group showed a significantly larger MIO than the GA group (MD=1.96, 95% CI=0.21 to 3.72, Z=2.19, p=0.03, I²=0%). In conclusion, patients with TMJA could benefit more from IA than GA, with a larger MIO and a similar incidence of reankylosis. IA shows to be an adequate option in the treatment of TMJA based on the results of maximal incisal opening.     

Drug-Eluting versus Bare-Metal Stent for Treatment of Saphenous Vein Grafts: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Saphenous vein grafts develop an aggressive atherosclerotic process and the efficacy of drug eluting stents (DES) in treating saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions has not been convincingly demonstrated. The aim of this study was to review and analyze the current literature for controlled studies comparing DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) for treatment of SVG stenoses.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We searched several scientific databases and conference proceedings up to March 15, 2010 for controlled studies comparing target vessel revascularization (TVR) between DES and BMS. Summary odds ratios (OR) for the primary endpoint TVR and secondary endpoints infarction, stent thrombosis and death were calculated using random-effect models. A total of 29 studies (3 randomized controlled trials RCT) involving 7549 (202 in RCT) patients were included. The need for target vessel revascularization in the DES group tended to be lower compared to BMS for the 3 RCT (OR 0.50 [0.24–1.00]; p = 0.051) and for observational studies (0.62 [0.49–0.79]; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the risk for myocardial infarction in the RCT (OR 1.25 [0.22–6.99]; p = 0.250) but a lower risk for DES based on the observational studies 0.68 [0.49–0.95]; p = 0.023. The risk for stent thrombosis was found to be non-different in the RCT (OR 0.78 [0.03–21.73], p = 0.885) while it was in favor of DES in the observational studies (0.58 [0.38 – 0.84]; p<0.001). The mortality was not significantly different between DES and BMS in the RCT''s (OR 2.22 [0.17 – 29.50]; p = 0.546) while the observation studies showed a decreased mortality in the DES group (0.69 [0.55–0.85]; p<0.001).

Conclusion

DES may decrease TVR rate in treatment of SVG stenoses. No differences in reinfarction rate, stent thrombosis or mortality was found between the DES and BMS groups in the RCT''s while the observational data showed lower risk for myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and death in the DES group. This may be a result of patient selection bias in the observational studies or represent a true finding that was not the detected in the RCT analysis due to limited statistical power.     

Ologen Implant versus Mitomycin C for Trabeculectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate the application of the Ologen implant compared to mitomycin C (MMC) on the outcome of trabeculectomy and to examine the balance of risks and benefits.

Methods

A systematic literature search (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database) was performed. Randomized controlled trials comparing the Ologen implant with MMC in trabeculectomy were selected. The efficacy measures were the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for the intraocular pressure reduction (IOPR), the reduction in glaucoma medications, and the relative risks (RRs) for success rates. The tolerability measures were RRs for adverse events. The pooled effects were calculated using the random-effects model.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials including 227 eyes were included in this meta-analysis. The WMDs of the IOPR comparing the Ologen group with the MMC group were −2.98 (95% Cl: −5.07 to −0.89) at one month, −1.41 (−3.72 to 0.91) at three months, −1.69 (−3.68 to 0.30) at six months, −1.94 (−3.88 to 0.01) at 12 months, and 0.65 (−2.17 to 0.47) at 24 months. There was no statistically significance except at one and 12 months after surgery. No significant difference in the reduction in glaucoma medications or complete and qualified success rates were found. The rates of adverse events also did not differ significantly between Ologen and MMC.

Conclusions

The Ologen implant is comparable with MMC for trabeculectomy in IOP-lowering efficacy, reduction in the number of glaucoma medications, success rates, and tolerability. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously since relevant evidence is still limited, although it is accumulating. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.