Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Sep 1;55(8):652-660.
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001539.

Metal Versus Plastic Stents for Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Xianzhu Zhou  1 , Han Lin  1 , Xiaoju Su  1 , Pingping Zhang  1 , Chunting Fu  2 , Xiangyu Kong  1 , Zhendong Jin  1 , Zhaoshen Li  1 , Yiqi Du  1 , Huiyun Zhu  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Metal Versus Plastic Stents for Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Xianzhu Zhou et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Objectives: The therapeutic efficacy of metal stents (MSs) for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is invariably controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the results of efficacy of MSs and plastic stents (PSs) in PFC drainage.

Subjects and methods: We performed a literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE for all of the published studies regarding the use of MSs and PSs for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFCs from January, 1 2015 to June 1, 2020. We extracted data from 9 studies (1359 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. The main outcome measures were the rates of treatment success, including technique success and clinical success (CS), adverse events, recurrence, procedure time, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Results: There was no difference in overall technique success between patients treated with MSs and PSs for PFCs. However, MSs showed a higher CS rate 92% versus 82% (P<0.01) and a lower overall adverse event rate 20% versus 31% (P<0.01) than PSs. The recurrence rate of PFCs using MSs also had significant advantages over PSs 3% versus 10% (P<0.01) and MSs needed a shorter procedure time than PSs (26.73 vs. 45.40 min, P<0.01). In comparing direct endoscopic necrosectomy use and LOS, there was no difference between MSs and PSs.

Conclusions: Bringing together the results of the current study, endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs using MSs may be superior to PSs in terms of CS, adverse events rates and recurrence rate, with similar LOS and direct endoscopic necrosectomy use.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Samuelson AL, Shah RJ. Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2012;41:47–62.
    1. Bang JY, Hawes R, Bartolucci A, et al. Efficacy of metal and plastic stents for transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:486–498.
    1. Keane MG, Sze SF, Cieplik N, et al. Endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a 14-year experience from a tertiary hepatobiliary centre. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3730–3740.
    1. Ang TL, Teoh AYB. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:463–471.
    1. Alali A, Mosko J, May G, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided management of pancreatic fluid collections: update and review of the literature. Clin Endosc. 2017;50:117–125.

Publication types