Comparison Between Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents and Plastic Stents in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collection A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

Objectives This study aimed to explore efficacy and safety between LAMSs (lumen-apposing metal stents) and DPPSs (double-pigtail plastic stents) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage for pancreatic fluid collections. Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies published until July 20, 2020. Results Fifteen studies were identified in this study. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage with LAMS has higher clinical success (90.01% vs 82.56%) (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-3.33; P < 0.00001), less recurrence (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.68; P = 0.0002), and fewer additional interventions (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.211-0.55; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between LAMS and DPPS in technical success (97.45% vs 97.38%) (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.70; P = 0.80), adverse events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41-2.09; P = 0.84), stent-related adverse events (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.39-1.54; P = 0.47), and bleeding (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.57-3.28; P = 0.42). Lumen-apposing metal stents have slightly more perforations (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 1.22-41.30; P = 0.03) in studies of walled-off necrosis. Conclusions Lumen-apposing metal stents have the advantage of higher clinical success, less recurrence, and fewer additional interventions. However, LAMS may increase perforation for walled-off necrosis.