ArticleClinical endoscopy2019
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Plastic Stent and Novel Lumen-apposing Metal Stent for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Stent Types for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of long-term indwelling plastic stents after resolution of pancreatic fluid collections with endoscopic transmural drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage: Where are we?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents for the internal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Current status of treatments of pancreatic and peripancreatic collections of acute pancreatitis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- A Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Surgical Creation of a Cystogastrostomy to Drain Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis in 5500 Patients.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2020Article
- Are Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents More Effective Than Plastic Stents for the Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Equivalent efficacy and safety of plastic stents and lumen-apposing metal stents in the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections: a prospective cohort study.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) has gained wide acceptance as a nonsurgical intervention. Although a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) was recently introduced, there are few data comparing the clinical outcomes between LAMS and plastic stent (PS) drainage.
methodsEndoscopy databases of all patients who had undergone EUS-guided drainage for PFCs were searched and the clinical outcomes of EUS-guided drainage according to stent-type used were compared.
resultsA total of 27 patients (median age, 56 years) with PFCs underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage between January 2011 and December 2017. Of these, 17 underwent PS placement and 10 underwent LAMS placement. There was no significant difference in the technical success rate between the 2 groups (94.1% vs. 100%, p=1.0). Procedure time was shorter in the LAMS group compared to that in the PS group (10.6±2.5 min vs. 21.4±9.5 min, p=0.002). Among subjects with clinical success, recurrence of PFC after stent removal occurred in 5 of 12 patients with PS and 4 of 10 with LAMS, without statistical difference (41.7% vs. 40.0%, p=1.0).
conclusionAlthough our study showed similar clinical outcomes for LAMS and PS, further prospective trials are required to validate the superiority of LAMS.
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.