ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
A novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective study.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage: Progress and future outlook.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- A review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage and gastroenterostomy: assisted approaches and comparison with alternative techniques.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Previous studies showed that lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) provides a feasible route to perform direct endoscopic necrosectomy. However, the high risk of bleeding and migration induced by the placement of LAMS attracted attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel LAMS. Methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to perform EUS-guided drainage with a LAMS in our hospital. Evaluation variables included technical success rate, clinical success rate, and adverse events. Results: Thirty-two patients with a mean age of 41.38 ± 10.72 years (53.1% males) were included in our study, and the mean size of PFC was 10.06 ± 3.03 cm. Technical success rate and clinical success rate reached 96.9% and 93.8%, respectively. Stent migration occurred in 1 patient (3.1%), and no stent-induced bleeding occurred. The outcomes of using LAMS in 10 patients with pancreatic pseudocyst and 22 patients with walled-off necrosis were comparable. Compared with pancreatic pseudocyst, walled-off necrosis needed more direct endoscopic necrosectomy times to achieve resolution ( Conclusions: Our study showed that the novel LAMS is effective and safe for endoscopic drainage of PFCs with a relatively low rate of adverse events. Further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm the present findings.
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.