ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2018
Comparing efficacy of lumen-apposing stents to plastic stents in the endoscopic management of mature peripancreatic fluid collections: a single-center experience.
Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents and Plastic Stents for the Treatment of Pancreatic Walled-Off Necrosis: A Meta-analysis.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Comparative outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy for peripancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
- Complications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and their management.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
- Controversies in EUS-guided treatment of walled-off necrosis.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMature peripancreatic fluid collection (MPFC) is a known and often challenging consequence of acute pancreatitis and often requires intervention. The most common method accepted is the "step-up approach," which consists of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. Our paper aims to distinguish between plastic stents and lumen-apposing stents in the endoscopic management of MPFC in terms of morbidity, mortality, and haste of fluid collection resolution.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed at UMass Memorial Medical Center in patients with a diagnosis of MPFC. Utilizing medical records, clinical data, radiology, as well as endoscopic evidence, patients were differentiated by stent type used (plastic versus lumen-apposing) for the management of the MPFC. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the time to MPFC resolution following the placement of either plastic or lumen-apposing stents (on endoscopic ultrasound or computerized tomography scan) using a multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model.
resultsA total of 54 patients were included in this study from UMass Memorial Medical Center between 2012 and 2015. Twelve (22%) of these patients received lumen-apposing stents and 42 (78%) of these patients received plastic pigtail stents. For the lumen-apposing stent group, the mean interval between stent placement and resolution of MPFC was 57 days as compared to 102 days for plastic pigtail stents ( DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates that lumen-apposing stents result in a significant reduction in the interval between stent placement and MPFC resolution as well as the time from stent placement to removal, when compared to plastic pigtail stents, the prior standard-of-care. Our study reached similar conclusions regarding the number of stents placed. However, we did not find a significant difference between the complication rates, specifically peri- and postprocedural bleeding or perforation, between the 2 study groups, as demonstrated in prior papers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.