You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 73, Issue 8
  • Tailoring treatment to the circumstance: reasoning behind metal versus plastic drainage of pancreatic collections – authors’ reply

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Tailoring treatment to the circumstance: reasoning behind metal versus plastic drainage of pancreatic collections – authors’ reply
  1. John Gásdal Karstensen1,2,
  2. Srdan Novovic1,2,
  3. Palle Nordblad Schmidt1
  1. 1 Pancreatitis Centre East (PACE), Gastro Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
  2. 2 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr John Gásdal Karstensen, Pancreatitis Centre East (PACE), Gastro Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; john.gasdal.karstensen{at}regionh.dk

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330948

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    We thank Vanella et al for their interest in our paper and for pointing out additional details and perspectives.1 2 In our study, we randomised patients with large pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) and a need for transgastric drainage to either a 20 mm lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) or double pigtail stent (DPT) and found no superiority of the LAMS in terms of number of necrosectomies, clinical resolution or length of stay.2 Vanella et al point out that a weekly dilatation of the transgastric stoma in the DPT study group might have favoured the DPT technique. We agree that this may be the case and it should be included when assessing the results of our study. However, two other …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JGK drafted the letter. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approval of the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests JGK is a consultant for Boston Sci, Ambu and SNIPR BIOME. PNS is a consultant for Boston Sci and Ambu. SN has no competing interests.

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