We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Efficacy of metal and plastic stents for transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Metal stents are being used more frequently for transmural endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) despite lack of data. The present systematic review was conducted to compare the rates of treatment success, adverse events and recurrence between patients undergoing metal versus plastic stent placement for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC.
METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify all published manuscripts that evaluated metal stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC. All published studies from the same period involving plastic stent placement for PFC drainage that included >50 patients were also identified. Main outcome measures were to compare the rates of treatment success, adverse events and recurrence between the metal and plastic stent cohorts.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies (881 patients) met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in overall treatment success between patients treated with plastic and metal stents (81% [95% CI, 77-84%] vs 82% [95% CI, 74-88%]) for both pseudocysts (85% [95% CI, 81-89%] vs 83% [95% CI, 74-89%]) and walled-off necrosis (70% [95% CI, 62-76%] vs 78% [95% CI, 50-93%]). Also, there was no difference in the rates of adverse events (16% [95% CI, 14-39%] vs 23% [95% CI, 16-33%]) or recurrence (10% [95% CI, 8-13%] vs 9% [95% CI, 4-19%]) between plastic and metal stents.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support routine placement of metal stents for transmural drainage of PFC. Randomized trials are needed to justify the use of metal stents for PFC drainage.
METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify all published manuscripts that evaluated metal stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC. All published studies from the same period involving plastic stent placement for PFC drainage that included >50 patients were also identified. Main outcome measures were to compare the rates of treatment success, adverse events and recurrence between the metal and plastic stent cohorts.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies (881 patients) met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in overall treatment success between patients treated with plastic and metal stents (81% [95% CI, 77-84%] vs 82% [95% CI, 74-88%]) for both pseudocysts (85% [95% CI, 81-89%] vs 83% [95% CI, 74-89%]) and walled-off necrosis (70% [95% CI, 62-76%] vs 78% [95% CI, 50-93%]). Also, there was no difference in the rates of adverse events (16% [95% CI, 14-39%] vs 23% [95% CI, 16-33%]) or recurrence (10% [95% CI, 8-13%] vs 9% [95% CI, 4-19%]) between plastic and metal stents.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support routine placement of metal stents for transmural drainage of PFC. Randomized trials are needed to justify the use of metal stents for PFC drainage.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app