ArticleCureus2024
Outcomes and Post-removal Course of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement for Peripancreatic Fluid Collections: A Comparative Study of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Necrosis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimPancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are common local complications of pancreatitis that may require interventional therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage from the digestive tract, particularly with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), is the first-line therapy due to its safety and efficacy. However, adverse events and post-removal courses remain uncertain. This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of LAMS placement and its removal, comparing pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) and walled-off necrosis (WON).
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included 23 patients who underwent transgastric LAMS placement for PFCs under EUS guidance. The patients were categorized into the PPC group (n = 14) and the WON group (n = 9). Backgrounds and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared.
resultsThe mean procedure time was 19 minutes in the PPC group and 25 minutes in the WON group, with no significant difference (p = 0.11). The overall incidence of adverse events during LAMS placement was 14.3% in the PPC group and 33.3% in the WON group, with no significant difference (p = 0.28), but the incidence of infection of noninfected fluid collections was 0% in the PPC group and 55.5% in the WON group, significantly higher in the WON group (p = 0.0016). At the time of LAMS removal, a double-pigtail plastic stent (DPS) was replaced in 53.8% of the PPC group and 57.1% of the WON group. Within one year, 57.1% of the replaced DPS in the PPC group and 25.0% in the WON group became dislocated. There were no adverse events due to the dislocation of the replaced DPS. Adverse events occurred in one patient in each group after LAMS removal: 7.7% in the PPC group and 14.3% in the WON group (p = 0.64), which consisted of peritonitis in the PPC group and recurrent infection of fluid collection in the WON group, and both of these events occurred when the replaced DPS was still in place after LAMS removal.
conclusionsAlthough there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of adverse events between PPC and WON, the incidence of infection after LAMS placement was significantly higher in WON. Regarding the replaced DPS, there were some cases of dislocation within one year, but there were no related adverse events. Adverse events occurred even after the removal of LAMS and replacement with DPS, so careful follow-up is required.
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.