Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2025
Application of End-to-end Anastomosis in Robotic Central Pancreatectomy
Published on: June 2, 2018
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Stent Types for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Systematic Review and
Faisal Kamal1, Muhammad Aziz2, Wade Lee-Smith3
1Division of Gastroenterology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Background And Aims:
Drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is required in select cases including infected or symptomatic collections. In this network meta-analysis, we have compared lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS), and double-pigtail stents (DPS) to identify the most useful stent type in the management of PFCs.
Methods:
We reviewed several databases to identify studies that compared DPS or FCSEMS with LAMS and the ones which compared DPS with FCSEMS for the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, recurrence of PFCs, and procedure duration. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis.
Results:
We included 28 studies with 2974 patients. Rate of clinical success was significantly lower with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 0.43 (0.32, 0.59). Rate of recurrence was higher with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 2.06 (1.19, 3.57). We found no significant difference in rate of adverse events between groups. Rate of technical success was higher for FCSEMS compared to LAMS. Procedure duration was significantly shorter for LAMS compared to DPS and FCSEMS. Based on frequentist approach, LAMS was found to be superior to DPS and FCSEMS in achieving higher clinical success, lower rate of adverse events and recurrence, and shorter procedure time.
Conclusions:
This network meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of LAMS over DPS and FCSEMS in the management of PFCs in achieving a higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, and lower rate of recurrence. Some of the analyses are not adequately powered to make firm conclusions, and future large multicenter RCTs are required to further evaluate this issue.
