Yao Yao, Zhang Dingguo, Guo Jiefang, Qi Ke, Li Feng, Zhu Jianwei, Wang Dong, Chen Jie, Xu Can, Wang Luowei, Wang Kaixuan, Jin Zhendong, Li Zhaoshen
Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University.
Department of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jan;98(3):e14179. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014179.
Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with metal stents is generally preferred over plastic stents, its superiority among different types of metal stents has not yet been well studied. We conducted this study to compare clinical outcomes and complications of a novel self-expanding biflanged metal stent (BFMS) and a traditional-shaped tubular metal stent (TMS) in treating pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC).This was a retrospective analysis on consecutive patients with PPC underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage with either TMS or BFMS in a single tertiary center with expertise in management of complex biliary and pancreatic problems. The technical and functional success rate, reintervention, complications, and recurrence rate were evaluated.From September 2013 to January 2018, 125 patients (66.4% male, median age 47 years) underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage for PPC. Among them, 49 used TMS and 76 used BFMS. All patients met the inclusion criteria that cyst diameter was >6 cm or the distance between cyst and stomach wall was shorter than 1 cm. There was no difference in technical success (98% vs 97.4%, P = 1.0) or functional success rate (87.8% vs 92.1%, P = .54) using 2 types of metal stents. However, more procedure related complications occurred in TMS than in BFMS group. TMS group had a much higher migration rate than BFMS group (14.6% vs 0, P = .001), even though there was no significant difference in bleeding, infection, or death rate between 2 groups. With similar clinical outcomes, TMS group required more additional plastic stent placement than BFMS group for better drainage.TMS and BFMS placement can both be considered as methods of endoscopic transmural PPC drainage with equal efficacy, whereas BFMS could be preferred for fewer complications or less need of additional plastic stent placement.
尽管内镜超声(EUS)引导下使用金属支架进行胰液积聚的经壁引流通常比使用塑料支架更受青睐,但不同类型金属支架之间的优越性尚未得到充分研究。我们进行这项研究是为了比较新型自膨式双法兰金属支架(BFMS)和传统形状的管状金属支架(TMS)在治疗胰腺假性囊肿(PPC)方面的临床结果和并发症。这是一项对在一个具有复杂胆道和胰腺问题管理专业知识的单一三级中心接受EUS引导下经壁引流的PPC连续患者进行的回顾性分析。评估了技术成功率、功能成功率、再次干预情况、并发症和复发率。2013年9月至2018年1月,125例患者(男性占66.4%,中位年龄47岁)因PPC接受了EUS引导下的经壁引流。其中,49例使用TMS,76例使用BFMS。所有患者均符合囊肿直径>6 cm或囊肿与胃壁距离短于1 cm的纳入标准。使用两种类型的金属支架在技术成功率(98%对97.4%,P = 1.0)或功能成功率(87.8%对92.1%,P = 0.54)方面没有差异。然而,TMS组发生的与操作相关的并发症比BFMS组更多。TMS组的移位率比BFMS组高得多(14.6%对0,P = 0.001),尽管两组在出血、感染或死亡率方面没有显著差异。在临床结果相似的情况下,TMS组比BFMS组需要更多地额外放置塑料支架以实现更好的引流。TMS和BFMS置入均可被视为内镜下经壁PPC引流的方法,疗效相当,而BFMS可能更受青睐,因为其并发症较少或对额外塑料支架的需求较少。