ReviewCureus2026
Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents for Endoscopic Drainage of Intra-abdominal Abscesses: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
Intra-abdominal abscesses require timely source control, most commonly achieved through image-guided percutaneous drainage. However, percutaneous access may be unfeasible or ineffective in selected cases due to anatomical constraints, interposed organs, or prior drainage failure. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has emerged as an alternative minimally invasive strategy, although evidence supporting its use in non-pancreatic intra-abdominal abscesses remains limited and heterogeneous. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed from database inception through January 2024 to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of EUS-guided LAMS for non-pancreatic intra-abdominal abscesses. The primary objective was to translate these findings into a conservative, anatomy-driven approach to support clinical decision-making. A total of 16 studies involving 99 patients were identified, including observational studies, case series, and case reports; studies focusing exclusively on pancreatic fluid collections were excluded. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists. Primary outcomes included technical and clinical success, while secondary outcomes comprised adverse events and reintervention rates. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting predominantly of retrospective series and case reports. Reported technical success ranged from approximately 92.5% to 100%, with clinical success rates between 88% and 100%. Adverse events were infrequent and generally mild, occurring in fewer than 10% of cases; these were predominantly mild, including transient abdominal or rectal discomfort, minor bleeding, and occasional stent migration. Most abscesses were pelvic or postoperative collections, commonly managed via transrectal or transcolonic access routes. Evidence supporting transgastric or transduodenal drainage was limited to carefully selected upper abdominal collections. EUS-guided drainage using LAMS appears to be a feasible and effective option in carefully selected patients with non-pancreatic intra-abdominal abscesses, particularly when percutaneous drainage is unfeasible or has failed. Success depends on strict apposition to the gastrointestinal lumen and adherence to the 'shortest-safe-path' principle, making it a viable rescue strategy after conventional drainage failure. Given the limitations of the available evidence, including small sample sizes and predominantly observational designs, this technique should be applied cautiously, with rigorous patient selection, strict anatomical considerations, and a predefined strategy for stent management and removal.
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.