Metal versus Plastic Stent for Transmural Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Ji Young Bang; Shyam Varadarajulu

doi:10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.500

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 46(5); 2013 > Article

Special Issue Article of IDEN 2013 Review Metal versus Plastic Stent for Transmural Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Ji Young Bang, Shyam Varadarajulu; Clinical Endoscopy 2013;46(5):500-502.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.500
Published online: September 30, 2013

Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, FL, USA.

Correspondence: Shyam Varadarajulu. Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, 601 East Rollins St, Orlando, FL 32803, USA. Tel: +1-407-303-2570, Fax: +1-407-303-2585, svaradarajulu@yahoo.com

• Received: May 8, 2013 • Revised: June 30, 2013 • Accepted: July 17, 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

7,091 Views
74 Download
21 Crossref
30 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

The conventional management of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) involves surgery or percutaneous drainage. While surgery is associated with significant complications and mortality, percutaneous drainage is associated with prolonged hospitalization and oftentimes the need for other adjunctive treatment measures. Therefore, the use of endoscopy to drain PFCs is becoming increasingly popular. Randomized trials have demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is superior to conventional endoscopy in terms of technical success and potentially decreases the rates of procedural complications. While transmural drainage is usually undertaken by deployment of plastic endoprosthesis, of late, fully covered self-expandable metal stents are being placed with increasing frequency. However, the benefits of this approach are unclear and require further validation in prospective trials.
Keywords: Pancreatic pseudocyst; Metal stents; Plastic stents; Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pseudocyst drainage; Endoscopic drainage

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic treatment outcomes are directly related to the type of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) being treated; while the treatment success for pancreatic pseudocysts is greater than 90%, it is at best 50% to 65% for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN).1 As the density of the cystic fluid is low, endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts can be accomplished by placement of a few transmural plastic stents through one fistulous tract. On the other hand, necrotic contents are highly dense and hence require a larger fistulous opening or multiple tracts for effective drainage, with ineffective drainage oftentimes resulting in infection. Also, the WOPN may extend deep into the abdominal flanks or can be multiloculated requiring adjunctive measures such as percutaneous or surgical drainage.

Pseudocyst drainage

In a recent study of 117 patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, the overall treatment success was 98.3% (115/117 patients): 102 (87.2%) patients required one intervention, 13 (11.1%) required >1 intervention and two (1.7%) failed treatment.2 There was no difference in the median number of interventions required for treatment success between patients with 7 or 10 Fr stents and between patients with 1 or >1 stent. On multivariate analysis, the size and number of stents were not associated with the number of interventions required for treatment success when adjusted for pseudocyst size, drainage modality, presence or absence of pancreatic duct stent placement, luminal compression, and location of the pseudocyst. A recent study on the use of a lumen-apposing novel metal stent for pseudocyst drainage in 15 patients demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to plastic stents: treatment success in all patients and one case of stent migration.3 In all studies, whether the endoprosthesis was plastic or metal, the stents were removed within 3 months following the resolution of the pseudocyst.2,3 The important question is: what are the added advantages to placing fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS)? FCSEMS are easier to deploy and preclude the need to place multiple plastic stents, which can be technically challenging. However, for pseudocysts (not WOPN), placement of one or two plastic stents may be sufficient to facilitate effective drainage of cyst contents. Also, plastic stents are significantly cheaper than FCSEMS. Therefore, while technically feasible, current evidence does not support a role for FCSEMS in patients with uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts. The results of selected studies examining the treatment outcomes in patients undergoing PFC drainage using plastic and metal stents are summarized in Tables 1, 2.1-12

WOPN drainage

There are two issues that are central to treatment outcomes: 1) extent of necrosis and 2) integrity of the main pancreatic duct. If the WOPN extends deeper into the flanks, patients will require a hybrid drainage that combines endoscopy with laparoscopy or percutaneous catheter placement to facilitate better irrigation, drainage and removal of the necrotic contents. On the other hand, if there is only one large necrotic cavity adjacent to the stomach or the duodenum, endoscopic transmural drainage alone is sufficient. While WOPN measuring <10 to 12 cm can be treated successfully with placement of multiple transluminal stents and a nasocystic drainage catheter through one transmural tract, WOPN measuring more than 12 cm benefit from more aggressive drainage via the multiple transluminal gateway technique (MTGT). This involves creating multiple conduits into the gut lumen for effective drainage of the necrotic contents (along with nasocystic catheter placement).13 In either scenario, if the stents are to be removed within 2 months, there is no difference in outcomes between placing a FCSEMS or multiple plastic stents (single plastic stents should not be placed in WOPN). Additionally, if treatment is undertaken using the MTGT approach, placement of FCSEMS at multiple sites may not be cost effective (Tables 1, 2).

In patients with an intact main pancreatic duct, once WOPN resolves, the transluminal stents need to be removed. In patients with a disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome, preliminary evidence suggests that indwelling permanent stents decrease the rates of PFC recurrence.14 The role of FCSEMS in such a scenario appears logical. The critical question is: can FCSEMS be left permanently? None of the current studies have addressed this important question.10,12 There is legitimate concern that once the WOPN resolves, the SEMS may migrate within the cavity and may be impossible to retrieve. Also, as the WOPN resolves, the SEMS may corrode the wall of the cavity and induce bleeding. Given these limitations, SEMS are not being placed on a permanent basis in patients with any type of PFC, including WOPN.

CONCLUSIONS

While current evidence suggests that placement of metal stents is technically feasible in patients with PFCs, there is no data to prove that metal stents are superior to plastic stents in terms of treatment efficacy, complications, recurrence rates or cost-effectiveness. Randomized trials with long-term follow-up are required to compare metal and plastic stents for drainage of PFCs.

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:2080–2088.Article PubMed
2. Bang JY, Wilcox CM, Trevino JM, Ramesh J, Varadarajulu S. Relationship between stent characteristics and treatment outcomes in endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77(5 Suppl):AB382.
3. Itoi T, Binmoeller KF, Shah J, et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel lumenapposing metal stent for endosonography-guided pancreatic pseudocyst and gallbladder drainage (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:870–876.Article PubMed
4. Sadik R, Kalaitzakis E, Thune A, Hansen J, Jönson C. EUS-guided drainage is more successful in pancreatic pseudocysts compared with abscesses. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:499–505.Article PubMed PMC
5. Gluck M, Ross A, Irani S, et al. Endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis reduces hospital stay and radiographic resources. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:1083–1088.Article PubMed
6. Bang JY, Wilcox CM, Trevino J, et al. Factors impacting treatment outcomes in the endoscopic management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol Epub 2013 Jul 5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgh.12328Article PubMed PMC
7. Seewald S, Ang TL, Richter H, et al. Long-term results after endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections. Dig Endosc 2012;24:36–41.Article PubMed
8. Belle S, Collet P, Post S, Kaehler G. Temporary cystogastrostomy with self-expanding metallic stents for pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopy 2010;42:493–495.Article PubMed
9. Berzosa M, Maheshwari S, Patel KK, Shaib YH. Single-step endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with a single self-expandable metal stent and standard linear echoendoscope. Endoscopy 2012;44:543–547.Article PubMed PDF
10. Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Cennamo V, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of infected pancreatic fluid collections with placement of covered self-expanding metal stents: a case series. Endoscopy 2012;44:429–433.Article PubMed PDF
11. Penn DE, Draganov PV, Wagh MS, Forsmark CE, Gupte AR, Chauhan SS. Prospective evaluation of the use of fully covered self-expanding metal stents for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:679–684.Article PubMed
12. Weilert F, Binmoeller KF, Shah JN, Bhat YM, Kane S. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with indeterminate adherence using temporary covered metal stents. Endoscopy 2012;44:780–783.Article PubMed PDF
13. Varadarajulu S, Phadnis MA, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Multiple transluminal gateway technique for EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:74–80.Article PubMed
14. Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic placement of permanent indwelling transmural stents in disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: does benefit outweigh the risks? Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1408–1412.Article PubMed

Table 1

A Summary of Selected Studies Using Plastic Stents for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Values are presented as number (%).

WOPN, walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

^a)Results are for both pseudocysts and WOPN as no subgroup analysis was performed according to pancreatic fluid collection type.

Table 2

A Summary of Selected Studies Using Metal Stents for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Values are presented as number (%).

WOPN, walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis from a Chinese multiple disciplinary team expert panel
Huiyun Zhu, Yiqi Du, Kaixuan Wang, Zhaoshen Li, Zhendong Jin
Endoscopic Ultrasound.2024; 13(4): 205. CrossRef
Controversies in EUS-guided treatment of walled-off necrosis
Michael Hocke, Sean Burmeister, Barbara Braden, Christian Jenssen, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono, Julio Iglesias-Garcia, André Ignee, Alberto Larghi, Kathleen Möller, Mihai Rimbas, Sun Siyu, Giuseppe Vanella, Christoph F. Dietrich
Endoscopic Ultrasound.2022; 11(6): 442. CrossRef
Successful Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatment of a Spontaneous Rupture of a Hemorrhagic Pancreatic Pseudocyst
Chan Park, Tae Hyeon Kim, Hyung Ku Chon
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 763. CrossRef
Management of infected post-pancreatic resection fluid collections under endoscopic ultrasound guidance using lumen apposing metal stent: A case series and review of the literature
Puneet Chhabra, Ben Maher, Dharmadev Trivedi, Dimitrios Karavias, Ali Arshad, Mark Wright, Nadeem Tehami
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.2021; 25(4): 500. CrossRef
A novel self-expanding biflanged metal stent vs tubular metal stent for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst
Yao Yao, Dingguo Zhang, Jiefang Guo, Ke Qi, Feng Li, Jianwei Zhu, Dong Wang, Jie Chen, Can Xu, Luowei Wang, Kaixuan Wang, Zhendong Jin, Zhaoshen Li
Medicine.2019; 98(3): e14179. CrossRef
EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents and plastic double-pigtail stents: comparison of efficacy and adverse event rates
Gabriel D. Lang, Cassandra Fritz, Trisha Bhat, Koushik K. Das, Faris M. Murad, Dayna S. Early, Steven A. Edmundowicz, Vladimir M. Kushnir, Daniel K. Mullady
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2018; 87(1): 150. CrossRef
Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collection: A meta‐analysis
Seung Bae Yoon, In Seok Lee, Myung-Gyu Choi
United European Gastroenterology Journal.2018; 6(5): 729. CrossRef
Interventional EUS (with videos)
John T. Maple, Rahul Pannala, Barham K. Abu Dayyeh, Harry R. Aslanian, Brintha K. Enestvedt, Adam Goodman, Sri Komanduri, Michael Manfredi, Udayakumar Navaneethan, Mansour A. Parsi, Zachary L. Smith, Nirav Thosani, Shelby A. Sullivan, Subhas Banerjee
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2017; 85(3): 465. CrossRef
The role of endoscopic intervention in the management of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections
Vikrant Parihar, Paul F. Ridgway, Kevin C. Conlon, Matthew Huggett, Barbara M. Ryan
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2017; 29(4): 371. CrossRef
Pancreatic Pseudocyst Dilemma: Cumulative Multicenter Experience in Management Using Endoscopy, Laparoscopy, and Open Surgery
Alaa A. Redwan, Mostafa A. Hamad, Mohammed A. Omar
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2017; 27(10): 1022. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of metallic stents in comparison to plastic stents for endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Rajesh Panwar, Preet Mohinder Singh
Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology.2017; 10(5): 403. CrossRef
Endosonographic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and walled-off necrosis
Ahmed Akhter, Mark E. Benson, Deepak V. Gopal
Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2017; 19(4): 190. CrossRef
Endoscópic Peri Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage Guided by USE in a Highly Complex Hospital in Lima, Peru. A First National Case Series
Augusto Vera Calderón
Gastroenterology & Hepatology: Open Access.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
Endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-off pancreatic necrosis using a lumen-apposing metal stent and irrigation technique
Joan B. Gornals, Claudia F. Consiglieri, Juli Busquets, Silvia Salord, Meritxell de-la-Hera, Lluis Secanella, Susana Redondo, Nuria Pelaez, Joan Fabregat
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(6): 2592. CrossRef
The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections
V. Raman Muthusamy, Vinay Chandrasekhara, Ruben D. Acosta, David H. Bruining, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, Ashley L. Faulx, Lisa Fonkalsrud, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, Mouen A. Khashab, Shivangi Kothari, Jenifer R. Lightdale, Shabana F. Pasha,
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2016; 83(3): 481. CrossRef
Evaluation of the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of fully covered self-expandable metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: results of a Spanish nationwide registry
Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros, Todd H. Baron, Manuel Pérez-Miranda, Andres Sánchez-Yagüe, Joan Gornals, Ferran Gonzalez-Huix, Carlos de la Serna, Juan Angel Gonzalez Martin, Antonio Z. Gimeno-Garcia, Carlos Marra-Lopez, Ana Castellot, Fernando Alberca, Ignaci
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2016; 84(3): 450. CrossRef
Case report of EUS-guided endoscopic transduodenal necrosectomy in a patient with sleeve gastrectomy
Avik Sarkar, Ragui Sadek, Matthew Lissauer, Swati Pawa
BMC Obesity.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
Metal versus plastic for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage: clinical outcomes and success
Reem Z. Sharaiha, Ersilia M. DeFilippis, Prashant Kedia, Monica Gaidhane, Christine Boumitri, Huei-Wen Lim, Eugene Han, Harkarit Singh, Saad S. Ghumman, Thomas Kowalski, David Loren, Michel Kahaleh, Ali Siddiqui
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2015; 82(5): 822. CrossRef
Management of pancreatic collections with a novel endoscopically placed fully covered self-expandable metal stent: a national experience (with videos)
Sujievvan Chandran, Marios Efthymiou, Arthur Kaffes, John Wei Chen, Vu Kwan, Michael Murray, David Williams, Nam Quoc Nguyen, William Tam, Christine Welch, Andre Chong, Saurabh Gupta, Ben Devereaux, Peter Tagkalidis, Frank Parker, Rhys Vaughan
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2015; 81(1): 127. CrossRef
Endoscopic Drainage of Pseudocysts
Tae Jun Song, Sang Soo Lee
Clinical Endoscopy.2014; 47(3): 222. CrossRef
The role of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound now and for the future
Vinay Dhir, Rajesh Kumar Paramasivam, Josef Carlo Lazaro, Amit Maydeo
Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2014; 8(7): 775. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Metal versus Plastic Stent for Transmural Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Clin Endosc. 2013;46(5):500-502. Published online September 30, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.500

XML Download

Metal versus Plastic Stent for Transmural Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Table 1

A Summary of Selected Studies Using Plastic Stents for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Values are presented as number (%).

WOPN, walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

^a)Results are for both pseudocysts and WOPN as no subgroup analysis was performed according to pancreatic fluid collection type.

Table 2

A Summary of Selected Studies Using Metal Stents for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Values are presented as number (%).

WOPN, walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Table 1 A Summary of Selected Studies Using Plastic Stents for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Values are presented as number (%).

WOPN, walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

^a)Results are for both pseudocysts and WOPN as no subgroup analysis was performed according to pancreatic fluid collection type.

Table 2 A Summary of Selected Studies Using Metal Stents for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Values are presented as number (%).

WOPN, walled-off pancreatic necrosis.