Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Association between prophylactic closure of mucosal defect and delayed adverse events after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Association between prophylactic closure of mucosal defect and delayed adverse events after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Association between prophylactic closure of mucosal defect and delayed adverse events after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Association between prophylactic closure of mucosal defect and delayed adverse events after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2024
Overview
ObjectiveTo investigate the potential of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects to prevent adverse events following endoscopic resection of superficial layers of the gastrointestinal (GI) wall.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis from inception to February 2022.Data extraction and synthesisWe compared the effects of closure versus non-closure of mucosal defects with respect to adverse events including delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (PPCS). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed based on gastrointestinal sites, surgical procedures and study designs.ResultsIn total, this study includes 11 383 patients from 28 studies. For delayed bleeding, closure group was associated with a lower incidence (Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.40, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 0.53, p<0.001; I2=25%) and consistent results were observed in the subgroups. Also, for delayed perforation, a combined analysis of all sites and surgical methods showed a protective effect of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.82, p=0.01; I2=0%). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analyses, despite the wide CIs. Regarding the PPCS, neither the pooled RRs nor the subgroup analyses showed significant differences.ConclusionProphylactic closure of mucosal defects is beneficial in reducing the incidence of delayed bleeding and delayed perforation after endoscopic resection, but there is no significant difference in reducing the incidence of PPCS.
Publisher
British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
Subject
/ Defects
/ Endoscopic Mucosal Resection - adverse effects
/ Gastroenterology and Hepatology
/ Humans
/ Intestinal Perforation - etiology
/ Intestinal Perforation - prevention & control
/ Intestinal Perforation - surgery
/ Patients
/ Postoperative Complications - prevention & control
/ Postoperative Hemorrhage - etiology
/ Postoperative Hemorrhage - prevention & control
/ Software
