4.6 Review

Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents and double-pigtail plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ANNALS OF MEDICINE
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 578-591

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2164048

关键词

Lumen-apposing metal stents; EUS-guided drainage; walled-off necrosis; plastic stent; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the efficacy of LAMS, BFMS, and DPS in the treatment of patients with WON. The results showed that LAMS had better clinical outcomes and fewer side effects when treating patients with WON.
Key Messages What is the best endoscopic treatment option for the walled-off necrosis (WON)? A brief comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), bi-flanged metallic stents (BFMS) and double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) for the treatment of WON patients. How can we limit the adverse events and provide better treatment. Background Patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) are still challenging to treat safely and effectively. Recently, double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS), bi-flanged metallic stents (BFMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been employed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS-guided) drainage. However, there is little solid evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of using stents. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the LAMS and the PS. Method Till July 2022, a thorough database search was done, and studies that met the criteria were chosen. By using the RevMan software, the technical and clinical success and other secondary outcomes were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed between the LAMS and the BFMS. Results Fifteen studies (two randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational) with 687 patients receiving metal stents and 771 patients receiving plastic stents were selected for final analysis. There was no significant risk of bias or publication bias. The odds ratios (OR) for technical and clinical success were 0.36 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.08, 1.52) and 2.26 (95%CI 1.62, 3.15), respectively. The OR for overall adverse events was 0.74 (95% CI 0.41, 1.34). In subgroup analysis, the LAMS and the BFMS showed the same outcomes. Conclusion Compared to DPS, LAMS had better clinical outcomes and fewer side effects when treating patients with WON.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据