ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2025
Comparative outcome of metal versus plastic stents for the management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis - An updated meta-analysis of randomised studies.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe choice of the stent for managing walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is a topic of debate with varying reported outcomes between metal and plastic stents. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of metal and plastic stents for the drainage of WOPN. PATIENTS AND
methodsA comprehensive search of literature from inception to December 2024 was done on three databases for randomised controlled trials comparing metal and plastic stents for drainage of WOPN. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Continuous variables were analysed using mean difference (MD).
resultsA total of 821 records were identified, of which seven studies were included in the final analysis. The procedural duration was significantly lower with metal stents with an MD of-11.32 min (95% CI: -17.75--4.88). However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of stent-related periprocedural adverse events, bleeding, serious bleeding, treatment success, need for necrosectomy, number of necrosectomies, number of reinterventions, need for percutaneous drainage, need for surgery, duration of hospitalisation, mortality, stent dysfunction, recurrence of WOPN, endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. The procedural costs were significantly higher for metal compared with plastic stents (MD 2.4 × 10 3 $, 95% CI: 1.2-3.7), with no significant difference in the overall cost.
conclusionExcept for a significantly shorter procedural duration, metal stents do not offer any significant advantage over plastic stents for WOPN drainage. Further studies are required before routinely recommending metal stents for WOPN drainage.
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.