TY - JOUR
T1 - There is no advantage to transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting for the transmural endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Amin, Sunil
AU - Yang, Dennis J.
AU - Lucas, Aimee L.
AU - Gonzalez, Susana
AU - DiMaio, Christopher J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
PY - 2017/7
Y1 - 2017/7
N2 - Background/Aims: Options for the endoscopic management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) include transmural drainage (TM) alone, transpapillary drainage (TP) alone, or a combination of both drainage method (CD). There have been conflicting reports about the best method. This study performed a meta-analysis to determine whether CD presents an added clinical benefit over TM. Methods: The included studies compared TM with CD and reported clinical success for both methods. A random-effects model was used to determine the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the following outcomes: technical success, clinical success, complications, and recurrence. Results: Nine studies involving a combined total of 604 drainage procedures—373 TMs (62%) and 231 CDs (38%)—were included. CD showed no additional benefit over TM in terms of technical success (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.37–3.37; p=0.85), clinical success (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.65–1.89; p=0.70), recurrence (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.53–4.21; p=0.45), or complications (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61–2.18; p=0.67). Conclusions: Pancreatic duct (PD) stenting provides no additional clinical benefit for the TM of PFCs (particularly pseudocysts). Patients undergoing the TM of symptomatic pseudocysts may not require endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP).
AB - Background/Aims: Options for the endoscopic management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) include transmural drainage (TM) alone, transpapillary drainage (TP) alone, or a combination of both drainage method (CD). There have been conflicting reports about the best method. This study performed a meta-analysis to determine whether CD presents an added clinical benefit over TM. Methods: The included studies compared TM with CD and reported clinical success for both methods. A random-effects model was used to determine the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the following outcomes: technical success, clinical success, complications, and recurrence. Results: Nine studies involving a combined total of 604 drainage procedures—373 TMs (62%) and 231 CDs (38%)—were included. CD showed no additional benefit over TM in terms of technical success (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.37–3.37; p=0.85), clinical success (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.65–1.89; p=0.70), recurrence (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.53–4.21; p=0.45), or complications (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61–2.18; p=0.67). Conclusions: Pancreatic duct (PD) stenting provides no additional clinical benefit for the TM of PFCs (particularly pseudocysts). Patients undergoing the TM of symptomatic pseudocysts may not require endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP).
KW - Drainage
KW - Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography
KW - Endoscopy
KW - Pancreatic fluid collection
KW - Pancreatic pseudocyst
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026768002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5946/ce.2016.091
DO - 10.5946/ce.2016.091
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85026768002
SN - 2234-2400
VL - 50
SP - 388
EP - 394
JO - Clinical Endoscopy
JF - Clinical Endoscopy
IS - 4
ER -