Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Acute necrotizing pancreatitis
Chronic
Endosonography
Fat necrosis, Pancreatic pseudocyst
Pancreatitis
Peripancreatic
Journal
Clinical endoscopy
ISSN: 2234-2400
Titre abrégé: Clin Endosc
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101576886
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jul 2024
24 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
05
12
2023
accepted:
19
01
2024
medline:
24
7
2024
pubmed:
24
7
2024
entrez:
24
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480). Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.
Sections du résumé
Background/Aims
UNASSIGNED
Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).
Results
UNASSIGNED
Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39044669
pii: ce.2023.297
doi: 10.5946/ce.2023.297
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng