↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Do lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) improve treatment outcomes of walled-off pancreatic necrosis over plastic stents using dual-modality drainage?
Published in
Endoscopy International Open, October 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0043-111794
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) usually has been performed with double pigtail plastic stents (DPS) and more recently, with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). However, LAMS are significantly more expensive and there are no comparative studies with DPS. Accordingly, we compared our experience with combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage (dual-modality drainage [DMD]) for symptomatic WON using LAMS versus DPS. Patients who underwent DMD of WON between July 2011 and June 2016 using LAMS were compared with a matched group treated with DPS. Technical success, clinical success, need for reintervention and adverse events (AE) were recorded. A total of 50 patients (31 males, 25 patients treated with LAMS and 25 patients treated with DPS) were matched for age, sex, computed tomography severity index, and disconnected pancreatic ducts. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Mean days hospitalized post-intervention (14.5 vs. 13.1, P  = 0.72), time to resolution of WON (77 days vs. 63 days, P  = 0.57) and mean follow-up (207 days vs. 258 days, P  = 0.34) were comparable in both groups. AEs were similar in both groups (6 vs. 8, P  = 0.53). Patients treated with LAMS had significantly more reinterventions per patient (1.5 vs. 0.72, P  = 0.01).  In treatment of symptomatic WON using DMD, LAMS did not shorten time to percutaneous drain removal and was not associated with fewer AEs.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 50%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unknown 10 38%