Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Non-superiority of lumen-apposing metal stents: Is the evidence conclusive?
  1. Lotte Boxhoorn,
  2. Paul Fockens,
  3. Rogier P Voermans
  1. Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rogier P Voermans, Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam,The Netherlands; r.p.voermans{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

With great interest we have read the work of Bang et al, comparing the efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) for endoscopic drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON).1 We congratulate the authors on completing the first randomised controlled trial comparing these two drainage strategies. They found no difference in the total number of procedures needed to achieve treatment success at 6-month follow-up. However, we feel that three important limitations have not been mentioned in the discussion.

First, we question whether the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors Drafting of manuscript: LB, PF and RPV.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles