Table 2.
Comparative Studies of Procedures Used to Treat Gastric Outlet Obstruction
| Study (year) | Technical success | Clinical success | Adverse events | Recurrence of GOO±reintervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SGJ vs SEMS† | ||||
| Fiori et al., (2004)38 | 9/9 (100) vs 9/9 (100) | 9/9 (100) vs 9/9 (100) | 1/9 (11.1) vs 1/9 (11.1) | NR |
| Mehta et al., (2006)39 | 13/14 (92.9) vs 10/13 (76.9) | NR | 8/14 (57.1) vs 0/13 (0) | NR |
| Jeurnink et al., (2010)33 | 17/18 (94.4) vs 20/21 (95.2) | NR | 5/18 (27.8) vs 8/21 (38.1) | 2/18 (11.1) vs 7/21 (33.3)* |
| Johnsson et al., (2004)40 | 15/15 (100) vs 21/21 (100) | 12/15 (80.0) vs 21/21 (100) | 1/15 (6.7) vs 2/21 (9.5) | |
| Schmidt et al., (2009)41 | 10/10 (100) vs 24/34 (70.6) | NR | NR | NR |
| EUS-GE vs SGJ | ||||
| Khashab et al., (2016)13 | 26/30 (86.7) vs 63/63 (100)* | 26/30 (86.7) vs 57/63 (90.5) | 5/30 (16.7) vs 16/63 (25.4) | 1/30 (3.3) vs 9/63 (14.3) |
| Perez-Miranda et al., (2017)34 | 22/25 (88.0) vs 29/29 (100) | 21/25 (84.0) vs 28/29 (96.6) | 3/25 (12.0) vs 12/29 (41.4)* | NR |
| EUS-GE vs SEMS | ||||
| Chen et al., (2017)36 | 26/30 (86.7) vs 49/52 (94.2) | 25/30 (83.3) vs 35/52 (67.3) | 5/30 (16.7) vs 6/52 (11.5) | 1/25 (4.0) vs 10/35 (28.5)* |
| Ge et al., (2019)37 | 24/24 (100) vs 97/97 (100) | 23/24 (95.8) vs 74/97 (76.3)* | 5/22 (22.7) vs 39/78 (50.0) | 2/24 (8.3) vs 31/97 (32.0)* |
GOO, gastric outlet obstruction; SGJ, surgical gastrojejunostomy; SEMS, self-expandable metal stent; EUS-GE, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy; NR, not reported.
*p-value <0.05; †For comparison of SGJ versus SEMS only randomized controlled studies and prospective cohort studies were included.