Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2021
Comparison of clinical outcomes of multiple plastic stents and covered metal stent in refractory pancreatic ductal strictures in chronic pancreatitis- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sofi Aijaz Ahmed, Khan Muhammad Ali, Ahmad Showkat, Khan Zubair, Peerzada Maajid Mumtaz, Sunguk Jang, Vargo John
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic pancreatic duct (PD) strictures in chronic pancreatitis refractory to single plastic stenting are usually managed by placement of multiple plastic stents (MPS). Fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMS) have also been used in the management of these patients. However, the overall efficacy and safety of different types of stents is unclear from the currently available studies. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and complications from MPS and FCSEMS in patients with PD strictures refractory to treatment with single plastic stents.
METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched for all the studies evaluating the outcome of placement of multiple plastic stents and fully covered metal stents in patients with PD strictures refractory to single plastic stenting. We calculated the Weighted Pooled Ratio (WPR) with Confidence Interval (CI) between the MPS and FCSEMS.
RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (including 2 abstracts) were included in the analysis. MPS were placed in 106 patients and FCSEMS in 192 patients. Improvement in pain after stenting (P = 0.794), risk of recurrence of pain after removal of stent (P = 0.48) and stricture recurrence after stent removal (P = 0.52) were comparable between MPS and FCSEMS. Risk of endoscopic re-intervention was also comparable between metal stents and MPS. However, FCSEMS was associated with overall higher risk of adverse events (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: FCSEMS are comparable to multiple plastic stents in the treatment of symptomatic refractory PD strictures. However, use of FCSEMS is associated with increased risk of adverse events.
METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched for all the studies evaluating the outcome of placement of multiple plastic stents and fully covered metal stents in patients with PD strictures refractory to single plastic stenting. We calculated the Weighted Pooled Ratio (WPR) with Confidence Interval (CI) between the MPS and FCSEMS.
RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (including 2 abstracts) were included in the analysis. MPS were placed in 106 patients and FCSEMS in 192 patients. Improvement in pain after stenting (P = 0.794), risk of recurrence of pain after removal of stent (P = 0.48) and stricture recurrence after stent removal (P = 0.52) were comparable between MPS and FCSEMS. Risk of endoscopic re-intervention was also comparable between metal stents and MPS. However, FCSEMS was associated with overall higher risk of adverse events (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: FCSEMS are comparable to multiple plastic stents in the treatment of symptomatic refractory PD strictures. However, use of FCSEMS is associated with increased risk of adverse events.