ArticleHeliyon2024
Pancreaticoduodenectomy after endoscopic ultrasound-guided lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS): A case series evaluating feasibility and short-term outcomes.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preservation of EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy LAMS during pancreaticoduodenectomy: a paradigm shift in the surgical management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- The Role of Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound in Management of Malignant Double Obstruction (Biliary and Gastric Outlet): A Comprehensive Review with Clinical Scenarios.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) represent a novel tool in therapeutic endoscopy. However, the presence of LAMS may dissuade surgeons from operations with curative-intent. We report three clinical scenarios with deployment of LAMS in patients that subsequently underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Methods: Six patients identified from our IRB-approved pancreas cancer database had EUS-LAMS placement prior to PD. Patient, tumor, treatment-related variables, and outcomes are herein reported. Results: Two patients underwent a LAMS gastrojejunostomy (GJ) for duodenal obstruction. Another patient underwent LAMS choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) for malignant biliary obstruction. In three patients, a LAMS gastrogastrostomy or jejunogastrostomy was deployed post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) for a EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) procedure. The hospital length of stay after LAMS placement was 0-3 days without morbidity. Patients subsequently proceeded to either classic PD (n = 5) or PPPD (n = 1). Interval from LAMS insertion to surgery ranged from 28 to 194 days. Mean PD operative time and EBL were 513 minutes and 560 mL, respectively. Post-PD hospital length of stay was 4-17 days. Clavien-Dindo IIIb morbidity required percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections in two patients. In cases involving LAMS-GJ and CDS, the LAMS directly impacted the surgeon's preference not to perform pylorus preservation. Conclusions: In this case series, PD following EUS-LAMS was feasible with acceptable morbidity. Additional studies with larger patient populations are needed to evaluate LAMS as a bridge to PD with curative-intent.
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.