{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: AbiMansour J;Jaruvongvanich V;Velaga S;Law R;Storm AC;Topazian M;Levy MJ;Alexander R;Vargas EJ;Bofill-Garica A;Martin JA;Petersen BT;Abu Dayyeh BK;Chandrasekhara V;
{Journal}: Clin Endosc
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jul 24
暂无{DOI}: 10.5946/ce.2023.297
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>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.