Efficacy and safety of plastic versus lumen-apposing metal stents for transmural drainage of walled-off necrosis: a retrospective single-center study.

BACKGROUND

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) were considered a breakthrough in the endoscopic management of walled-off necrosis (WON), as their larger drainage diameter was expected to provide effective drainage of necrotic material. However, various studies and meta-analyses that have compared plastic and metal stents for the treatment of WON have shown conflicting results. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of endoscopic transmural drainage between multiple plastic stents and LAMS.

METHODS

Endoscopic data were retrospectively retrieved for patients who had undergone endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage/debridement of WON. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether multiple plastic stents or LAMS were deployed during initial drainage. The resolution and complication rates were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-six patients (83% male, mean age 37.5 years) with symptomatic WON were treated with EUS-guided drainage using either multiple plastic stents (n=138) or LAMS (n=28). Patients in the LAMS group had significantly larger WON and a significantly higher proportion of solid content. WON resolution rates did not differ between plastic stents and LAMS (98.5% vs. 96.4% respectively, P=0.42). However, the time taken to resolution was significantly shorter in the LAMS group than in the plastic stents group (26.7 vs. 29.8 days, P=0.03). There was no significant difference between the groups in either mortality or complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The technical success, rates of WON resolution and complications were similar in patients treated with multiple plastic stents and LAMS. However, LAMS were associated with a significantly shorter time to resolution.