scholarly journals Lumen apposing metal stents in drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis, are they any better than plastic stents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published since the revised Atlanta classification of pancreatic fluid collections

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
DouglasG Adler ◽  
BabuP Mohan ◽  
Mahendran Jayaraj ◽  
Ravishankar Asokkumar ◽  
Mohammed Shakhatreh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plastic Stents ◽  
Metal Stents ◽  
Pancreatic Fluid Collections ◽  
Pancreatic Fluid ◽  
Fluid Collections ◽  
Walled Off Necrosis ◽  
Better Than

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of metal versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: metal stents are advantageous

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 1412-1425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Saunders ◽  
Jayapal Ramesh ◽  
Silvia Cicconi ◽  
Jonathan Evans ◽  
Vincent S. Yip ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plastic Stents ◽  
Metal Stents ◽  
Pancreatic Fluid Collections ◽  
Pancreatic Fluid ◽  
Fluid Collections

scholarly journals Are Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents More Effective Than Plastic Stents for the Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Shali Tan ◽  
Chunyu Zhong ◽  
Yutang Ren ◽  
Xujuan Luo ◽  
Jin Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plastic Stents ◽  
Metal Stents ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Pancreatic Fluid Collections ◽  
Pancreatic Fluid ◽  
Fluid Collections

Background and Aims. Recently, a new type of metal stent, named lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), has been designed to manage pancreatic fluid collections (PFC), and a few studies have reported its efficacy and safety. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the role of LAMS for PFC. Methods. We searched the studies from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to May 2019. We extracted the data and analyzed the technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of LAMS to evaluate its efficacy and safety. Results. Twenty studies with 1534 patients were included. The pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse event rates of LAMS for PFC were 96.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.6%-97.4%), 86.8% (95% CI: 83.1%-89.8%), and 20.7% (95% CI: 16.1%-26.1%), respectively. Eight studies including 875 patients compared the clinical outcomes of LAMS with plastic stents. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of technical success and clinical success for LAMS and plastic stent was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98-1.04, P=0.62) and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01-1.12, P=0.03), respectively. As for the overall adverse events, the pooled RR was 1.51 (95% CI: 0.67-3.44, P=0.32). Conclusions. Our current study revealed that LAMS has advantages over plastic stents for PFC, with higher clinical success rate and lower complication rate of infection and occlusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document