JOSE GONCALVES PEREIRA BRAVO
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
4 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 4 de 4
conferenceObject Traditional forward view versus wide view technology: polyp and adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy(2016) ROCHA, Rodrigo S.; KORKISCHKO, Nadia; SILVA, Gustavo L.; AQUINO, Julio Cesar M.; MORITA, Flavio H.; MOURA, Eduardo T. de; MOURA, Diogo T. de; OLIVEIRA, Joel; MENDONCA, Ernesto Q.; BRAVO, Jose G.; BARACAT, Felipe I.; SAKAI, Paulo; MOURA, Eduardo G. de- Percutaneous endoscopic versus surgical gastrostomy in patients with benign and malignant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis(2016) BRAVO, Jose Goncalves Pereira; IDE, Edson; KONDO, Andre; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; MOURA, Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de; SAKAI, Paulo; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deTo compare the complications and mortality related to gastrostomy procedures performed using surgical and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques, this review covered seven studies. Five of these were retrospective and two were randomized prospective studies. In total, 406 patients were involved, 232 of whom had undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and 174 of whom had undergone surgical gastrostomy. The analysis was performed using Review Manager. Risk differences were computed using a fixed-effects model and forest and funnel plots. Data on risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the Mantel-Haenszel test. There was no difference in major complications in retrospective (95% CI (-0.11 to 0.10)) or randomized (95% CI (-0.07 to 0.05)) studies. Regarding minor complications, no difference was found in retrospective studies (95% CI (-00.17 to 0.09)), whereas a difference was observed in randomized studies (95% CI (-0.25 to -0.02)). Separate analyses of retrospective and randomized studies revealed no differences between the methods in relation to mortality and major complications. Moreover, low levels of minor complications were observed among endoscopic procedures in randomized studies, with no difference observed compared with retrospective studies.
bookPart Métodos Endoscópicos de Acesso Enteral: Gastrostomias Endoscópicas(2017) BRAVO, José Gonçalves Pereira; MORITA, Flávio Hiroshi Ananias; MATUGUMA, Sérgio Eiji; IDE, Edsonarticle 5 Citação(ões) na Scopus Guide wire-assisted cannulation versus conventional contrast to prevent pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized control trials(2016) DE MOURA, Eduardo T.H.; DE MOURA, Eduardo G.H.; BERNARDO, Wanderley; CHENG, Spencer; KONDO, Andre; DE MOURA, Diogo T.H.; BRAVO, Jose; ARTIFON, Everson L.A.Objective: Through this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to clarify the differences between these two techniques, thus improving primary success cannulation and reducing complications during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, primarily pancreatitis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to search for data available up until June2015from the most important databases available in the health field: EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, LILACS and CENTRAL (via BVS), SCOPUS, the CAPES database (Brazil), and gray literature. Results: Nine randomized clinical trialsincluding2583 people were selected from20,198 studies for meta-analysis. Choledocholithiasis had been diagnosed in mostly (63.8%) of the patients, who were aged an average of 63.15 years. In those patients treated using the guide wire-assisted cannulation technique, provided a significantly lower instance of pancreatitis (RD=0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.05; I2= 45%) and greater primary success cannulation (RD=0.07; 95% CI: 0.03-0.12; I2=12%) than conventional contrast cannulation. Conclusions: The guide wire-assisted technique, when compared to the conventional contrast technique, reduces the risk of pancreatitis and increases primary success cannulation rate. Thus, guide wire-assisted cannulation appears to be the most appropriate first-line cannulation technique