Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent With and Without Concurrent Double-Pigtail Plastic Stent for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are often used to drain pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, adverse events, such as stent obstruction, infection, or bleeding, have been reported. Concurrent double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) deployment has been suggested to prevent these adverse events. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LAMS with DPPS vs. LAMS alone in the drainage of PFCs. Methods: An extensive search was conducted in the literature to include all the eligible studies that compared LAMS with DPPS vs. LAMS alone for drainage of PFCs. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained within a random-effect model. The outcomes were technical and clinical success, and overall adverse events, including stent migration and occlusion, bleeding, infection, and perforation. Results: Five studies involving 281 patients with PFCs (137 received LAMS plus DPPS vs. 144 received LAMS alone) were included. LAMS plus DPPS group was associated with comparable technical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.04, P = 0.70) and clinical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.88 - 1.17). Lower trends of overall adverse events (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.32 - 1.29), stent occlusion (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.27 - 1.49), infection (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.15 - 1.64), and perforation (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.06 - 2.78) were observed in LAMS with DPPS group compared to LAMS alone but without a statistical significance. Stent migration (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.50 - 3.34) and bleeding (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.25 - 1.72) were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Deployment of DPPS across LAMS for drainage of PFCs has no significant impact on efficacy or safety outcomes. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to confirm our study results, especially in walled-off pancreatic necrosis.