Scholarlink

Background <p>Optimal management of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) continues to evolve, yet current guidelines provide limited direction across treatment options. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared WOPN interventions to inform forthcoming clinical guidelines by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).</p> Methods <p>A systematic review through January 24, 2025, addressed four key questions (KQs): (1) image-guided versus endoscopic, (2) image-guided versus surgical, (3) endoscopic versus surgical, and (4) pure endoscopic versus the step-up approaches. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE. Reporting followed PRISMA 2020.</p> Results <p>Compared to endoscopic (KQ1), image-guided intervention may be associated with higher mortality (OR: 4.80), increased combined and surgical reintervention (OR: 3.94), more severe complications&#xa0;(OR: 5.42), and longer hospital stay (OR: 15.75).</p> <p>Compared to open surgery (KQ2), image-guided intervention may be associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.40) and fewer radiologic reinterventions (OR: 0.14), but higher surgical reintervention (OR: 4.28). No significant differences were observed compared with minimally invasive surgery (MIS).</p> <p>In RCT data, endoscopic and MIS approaches (KQ3) may have similar outcomes, with no significant differences in mortality, complications, or reintervention.</p> <p>For pure endoscopic vs step-up approaches (KQ4), RCT data suggest that an endoscopic-only strategy may be associated with fewer severe complications (OR: 0.36) but higher rates of radiologic (OR: 4.48) and endoscopic reinterventions (OR: 2.96), with no clear difference in mortality.</p> Conclusion <p>Endoscopic management may be associated with more favorable outcomes than image-guided interventions. Image-guided intervention may be associated with lower mortality than open surgery but increased surgical reintervention. Endoscopic and MIS approaches may be equally effective. Endoscopic-only approaches may reduce severe complications at the cost of more reinterventions than the step-up approach. Overall, CoE is very low, highlighting the need for high-quality, multicenter RCTs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

SAGES systematic review and meta-analysis for the management of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月7日

查看全文
  • Olivia Ganescu,
  • Elisa C. Calabrese,
  • Himsikhar Khataniar,
  • Pramod Nepal,
  • Claire Wunker,
  • Dena Shehata,
  • Ahmed Abou-Setta,
  • Ivan D. Florez,
  • Bethany J. Slater,
  • Kevin El-Hayek

摘要

Background

Optimal management of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) continues to evolve, yet current guidelines provide limited direction across treatment options. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared WOPN interventions to inform forthcoming clinical guidelines by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).

Methods

A systematic review through January 24, 2025, addressed four key questions (KQs): (1) image-guided versus endoscopic, (2) image-guided versus surgical, (3) endoscopic versus surgical, and (4) pure endoscopic versus the step-up approaches. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE. Reporting followed PRISMA 2020.

Results

Compared to endoscopic (KQ1), image-guided intervention may be associated with higher mortality (OR: 4.80), increased combined and surgical reintervention (OR: 3.94), more severe complications (OR: 5.42), and longer hospital stay (OR: 15.75).

Compared to open surgery (KQ2), image-guided intervention may be associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.40) and fewer radiologic reinterventions (OR: 0.14), but higher surgical reintervention (OR: 4.28). No significant differences were observed compared with minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

In RCT data, endoscopic and MIS approaches (KQ3) may have similar outcomes, with no significant differences in mortality, complications, or reintervention.

For pure endoscopic vs step-up approaches (KQ4), RCT data suggest that an endoscopic-only strategy may be associated with fewer severe complications (OR: 0.36) but higher rates of radiologic (OR: 4.48) and endoscopic reinterventions (OR: 2.96), with no clear difference in mortality.

Conclusion

Endoscopic management may be associated with more favorable outcomes than image-guided interventions. Image-guided intervention may be associated with lower mortality than open surgery but increased surgical reintervention. Endoscopic and MIS approaches may be equally effective. Endoscopic-only approaches may reduce severe complications at the cost of more reinterventions than the step-up approach. Overall, CoE is very low, highlighting the need for high-quality, multicenter RCTs.