Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).
UNASSIGNED: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).
UNASSIGNED: Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).
UNASSIGNED: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).
UNASSIGNED: Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.
摘要：
■通过管腔贴壁金属支架（LAMSs）同轴放置双尾纤塑料支架（DPPS）通常是为了降低LAMS阻塞的风险，出血,和支架迁移时，用于引流胰液集合（PFC）。进行了系统评价和荟萃分析，以比较单独LAMS和LAMS与同轴DPPS放置在PFC管理中的结果。
■进行了系统评价，以确定比较LAMS和LAMS/DPPS用于PFC排水的研究。主要结果包括临床成功率，总体不良事件（AE），出血,感染,遮挡,和支架迁移。使用随机效应模型总结合并效应大小，并通过计算比值比（OR）在LAMS和LAMS/DPPS之间进行比较。
■确定了9项研究，涉及709名患者（LAMS为338例，LAMS/DPPS为371例）。LAMS/DPPS与支架阻塞风险降低相关(OR，0.59；p=0.004）和感染（OR，0.55；p=0.001)。临床成功率无显著差异(OR，0.96；p=0.440)，总体不良事件(或，0.57；p=0.060），出血（或，0.61；p=0.120)，或支架迁移(或，1.03；p=0.480）。
■用于PFCsLAMS引流的同轴DPPS与降低支架闭塞和感染的风险相关；然而，总体AE发生率或出血无差异.
■进行了系统评价，以确定比较LAMS和LAMS/DPPS用于PFC排水的研究。主要结果包括临床成功率，总体不良事件（AE），出血,感染,遮挡,和支架迁移。使用随机效应模型总结合并效应大小，并通过计算比值比（OR）在LAMS和LAMS/DPPS之间进行比较。
■确定了9项研究，涉及709名患者（LAMS为338例，LAMS/DPPS为371例）。LAMS/DPPS与支架阻塞风险降低相关(OR，0.59；p=0.004）和感染（OR，0.55；p=0.001)。临床成功率无显著差异(OR，0.96；p=0.440)，总体不良事件(或，0.57；p=0.060），出血（或，0.61；p=0.120)，或支架迁移(或，1.03；p=0.480）。
■用于PFCsLAMS引流的同轴DPPS与降低支架闭塞和感染的风险相关；然而，总体AE发生率或出血无差异.
