Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collection: A meta-analysis

Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collection: A meta-analysis BackgroundAlthough metal stents are increasingly being used for endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC), the advantages of metal stents in comparison with plastic stents are not clear.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes and adverse events between patients receiving endoscopic transmural drainage of PFCs through metal or plastic stents.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search to identify all published manuscripts comparing metal and plastic stents for PFC drainage. The primary outcome was clinical success, and the secondary outcomes were technical success, procedure time, overall cost, adverse events, and recurrence.ResultsSeven studies were considered to be appropriate for this meta-analysis. Metal stents showed a higher clinical success rate (odds ratio (OR) 3.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05–5.60) and a lower overall adverse event rate (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21–0.66) than plastic stents. In subgroup analyses, metal stents showed higher clinical success rates than plastic stents both for pseudocyst (OR 5.35, 95% CI 1.35–21.19) and walled-off necrosis (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.89–5.99).ConclusionsMetal stents are superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC because they have a higher clinical success rate and lower rate of adverse events. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png United European Gastroenterology Journal SAGE

Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collection: A meta-analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/metal-versus-plastic-stents-for-drainage-of-pancreatic-fluid-1N8qqIkMc4
Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© Author(s) 2018
ISSN
2050-6406
eISSN
2050-6414
D.O.I.
10.1177/2050640618761702
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough metal stents are increasingly being used for endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC), the advantages of metal stents in comparison with plastic stents are not clear.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes and adverse events between patients receiving endoscopic transmural drainage of PFCs through metal or plastic stents.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search to identify all published manuscripts comparing metal and plastic stents for PFC drainage. The primary outcome was clinical success, and the secondary outcomes were technical success, procedure time, overall cost, adverse events, and recurrence.ResultsSeven studies were considered to be appropriate for this meta-analysis. Metal stents showed a higher clinical success rate (odds ratio (OR) 3.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05–5.60) and a lower overall adverse event rate (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21–0.66) than plastic stents. In subgroup analyses, metal stents showed higher clinical success rates than plastic stents both for pseudocyst (OR 5.35, 95% CI 1.35–21.19) and walled-off necrosis (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.89–5.99).ConclusionsMetal stents are superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC because they have a higher clinical success rate and lower rate of adverse events.

Journal

United European Gastroenterology JournalSAGE

Published: Jun 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off