ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2025
A Critical Narrative Review of Coaxial Double-Pigtail Stenting Within the LAMS in the Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2025. 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.
- Simultaneous antegrade-retrograde endoscopic procedures for the placement of thermo-expandable metallic stents in the treatment of ureteral stenosis in kidney transplantation patients: A cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Case Report: Unexpected LAMS obstruction following successful EUS-BD in a patient with pancreatic carcinoma.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
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
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has become the standard for managing pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), especially walled-off necrosis (WON). However, LAMS-specific adverse events (AEs), including bleeding, stent occlusion, and infection, remain a concern. To mitigate these complications, some experts advocate placing coaxial double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs) within LAMSs. This narrative review critically examines the evidence from retrospective and prospective studies, one RCT, and recent meta-analyses on this combined approach. While the routine use of coaxial double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs) within LAMSs is not universally supported, emerging data suggest benefits in select high-risk scenarios, such as large WON, debris-rich cavities, or disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS), in which coaxial DPPS within LAMSs can reduce occlusion, infection, and recurrence. In addition, the type of LAMS appears to influence safety outcomes: the SPAXUS stent shows lower bleeding and migration rates than the Hot AXIOS. We propose a pragmatic algorithm for the patient-tailored use of coaxial DPPS and discuss technical innovations to improve outcomes. While evidence is still evolving, personalized strategies and future high-quality studies are needed to define the optimal role of coaxial DPPS within LAMSs in the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.
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.