You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Lumen-apposing metal stents for pancreatic fluid collection drainage: may not be business as usual?

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Lumen-apposing metal stents for pancreatic fluid collection drainage: may not be business as usual?
  1. John S Leeds,
  2. Manu K Nayar,
  3. Richard M Charnley,
  4. Kofi W Oppong
  1. HPB Unit, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr John S Leeds, HPB Unit, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK; j.leeds{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313187

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 read with interest the paper by Bang et al1 concerning their interim analysis of an ongoing randomised study comparing a novel fully covered self-expanding metal stent (fcSEMS) to plastic stents in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). This was following concerns over higher than expected adverse events in the fcSEMS (50%) compared with the plastic stent group (0%). Specifically, these adverse events were three cases of bleeding, two cases of buried stent and one case of biliary stricture. The three cases of bleeding were found to have pseudoaneurysms, which were treated by radiologically guided coiling. One of the buried stent cases developed severe bleeding on removal and requiring radiological intervention. The biliary stricture was managed endoscopically with fcSEMS removal and biliary …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JSL, MKN, RMC and KWO contributed to the conception, drafting and approval of the article.

    • Competing interests None.

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

    Linked Articles