Diagnostic accuracy of water‐soluble contrast enema, contrast‐enema computed tomography and endoscopy in detecting anastomotic leakage after (Colo) proctectomy: A meta‐analysis

Author:

Chierici Andrea1,Granieri Stefano2ORCID,Frontali Alice3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Transplantation Hépatique ‐ Hôpital l’Archet 2, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice Nice France

2. General Surgery Unit, ASST‐Brianza, Vimercate Hospital, Via Santi Cosma e Damiano Vimercate Italy

3. Coloproctology and IBD Surgery Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Milan Italy

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) as a result of creation of a colorectal/anal anastomosis still represents a frequent complication of colorectal surgery, with short‐ and long‐term consequences on postoperative morbidity, quality of life and oncological outcomes. However, early diagnosis of AL may result in improved outcomes. The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of water‐soluble contrast enema (WSCE), contrast enema computed tomography (CECT) and endoscopy in identifying AL and to identify the diagnostic procedure that is most accurate.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis of 19 studies accounting for a total of 25 tests reporting diagnostic accuracy estimates was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA‐DTA) guidelines up to June 2021. For the diagnostic tests we evaluated the pooled estimates and conducted pairwise comparisons.ResultsFor WSCE, the pooled sensitivity was 0.50, the pooled specificity was 0.99 and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91. For endoscopy, the pooled sensitivity was 0.69, specificity was 1.00 and AUC was 0.99. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for CECT were 0.89 and 1.00, respectively; the AUC was 0.99. The comparison between CECT and WSCE highlighted a significantly greater sensitivity (p = 0.04) for CECT, whereas no difference was found for specificity. Compared with CECT, endoscopy was not significantly more accurate in terms of either sensitivity or specificity. Endoscopy was found to be significantly more specific than WSCE (p = 0.031) but no difference was found for sensitivity.ConclusionWater‐soluble contrast enema, endoscopy and CECT have an elevated diagnostic accuracy. However, WSCE is less accurate than either endoscopy or CECT. Although greater sensitivity was demonstrated for CECT compared with endoscopy, this was not significant.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Gastroenterology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3