ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Endosonography-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: comparative outcomes by stent type.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Lumen-apposing metal stents versus traditional self-expanding metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Impact of the Timing of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage following Endoscopic Drainage on Outcomes in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- Early versus delayed interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.DEN open · 2023Review
- Clinical Outcomes of the Endoscopic Step-Up Approach with or without Radiology-Guided Percutaneous Drainage for Symptomatic Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Endoscopic step up: When and how.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- Lumen Apposition: A Changing Landscape in Therapeutic Endoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Endoscopic Transmural Drainage and Necrosectomy in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Review.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2021Article
- When Should We Perform Endoscopic Drainage and Necrosectomy for Walled-Off Necrosis?Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- A novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective study.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- A novel lumen-apposing metal stent for EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: A multicenter prospective study.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including walled-off necrosis (WON), are commonly described sequelae of pancreatitis. Endosonography-guided PFC drainage can be performed using plastic stents (PS), fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). We performed a retrospective study comparing clinical outcomes and adverse events by stent type.
methodsIn this historical cohort, patients undergoing endosonography-guided PFC drainage from 2010 to 2019 were divided into groups: those treated with (1) PS, (2) FCSEMS, and (3) LAMS. Clinical success, the primary outcome, was defined as complete resolution or size reduction of ≥ 50%, with resolution of symptoms and no reintervention required at 3 months following the index procedure. Adverse events (AEs) and procedure times were also evaluated.
resultsFifty-eight patients were included. Procedure times were significantly shorter with LAMS (21.4 ± 10.8 min versus 53.0 ± 24.4 min for FCSEMS and 65.9 ± 23.4 min for PS, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates for WON were higher with LAMS compared with FCSEMS (95.7% vs 66.7%, respectively; p = 0.04). For all PFCs, treatment with LAMS trended towards higher clinical success rates compared with PS and FCSEMS (96.3% vs 81.8% vs 77.8%, respectively; p = 0.14). Early AEs (within 1 week) occurred at significantly lower rates in the LAMS group compared to PS and FCSEMS (0% vs 33.3% vs 10.6%, respectively; p = 0.006), as did late AEs (7.4% vs 44.5% vs 40%, respectively; p = 0.01).
conclusionsLAMS is superior in terms of WON clinical success, favorable in terms of lower adverse event profile, and shorter in terms of procedural time compared to FCSEMS and PS. LAMS can be considered as an initial approach for WON, given that clinical success in WON is lower when using PS or FCSEMS, though more high-quality data are needed.
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.