Background and aim Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the gold standard approach for the treatment of encapsulated pancreatic collections (EPCs) including pseudocyst and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and is associated with an equivalent clinical efficacy to surgical drainage with fewer complications and less morbidity. Drainage may be achieved via several types of stents including a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). However, to date there have been no randomized trials to compare these devices. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the SEMS versus LAMS for EUS-guided drainage of EPCs. Methods A phase IIB randomized trial was designed to compare the SEMS versus LAMS for the treatment of EPCs. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were evaluated. A sample size of 42 patients was determined. Results There was no difference between the two groups in technical (LAMS 80.95% vs 100% SEMS, p=0.107), clinical (LAMS 85.71% vs 95.24% SEMS, p=0.606) or radiological success (LAMS 92.86% vs 83.33% SEMS, p=0.613). There was no difference in AEs including stent migration rate and mortality. The procedure time was longer in the LAMS group (mean time 43.81 min versus 24.43 min, p=0.001). There was also a difference in the number of intra-procedure complications (5 LAMS vs 0 SEMS, p=0.048). Conclusion SEMS and LAMS have similar technical, clinical, and radiological success as well as AEs. However, SEMS has a shorter procedure time and fewer intra-procedure complications compared to non-electrocautery-enhanced LAMS in this phase IIB randomized controlled trial (RCT). The choice of the type of stent used for EUS drainage of EPCs should consider device availability, costs, and personal and local experience.

Pain is one of the consequences of chronic pancreatitis (CP) that has the greatest impact on the quality of life of patients. Endoscopic and surgical interventions, by producing a decrease in intraductal pancreatic pressure, can provide pain relief. This is the first systematic review that includes only randomized clinical trials (RTCs) comparing outcomes in the short-term (less than 2 years) and long-term (more than 2 years) between these two types of interventions.

A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify RTCs comparing short and long-term pain relief, procedural complications, and days of hospitalization between endoscopic and surgical interventions was performed following the PRISMA guidelines.

Three RCTs evaluating a total of 199 patients (99 in the endoscopy group and 100 in the surgery group) were included in this study. Surgical interventions provided complete pain relief, with statistical difference, in the long-term (16,4% vs 35.7%; RD 0.19; 95% CI 0.03-0.35; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), without significant difference in short-term (17.5% vs 31.2%; RD 0.14; 95% CI -0.01-0.28; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%) when compared to endoscopy. There was no statistical difference in short-term (17.5% vs 28.1%; RD 0.11; 95% CI -0.04-0.25; p = 0.15; I2 = 0%) and long-term (34% vs 41.1%; RD 0.07; 95% CI -0.10-0.24; p = 0.42; I2 0%) in partial relief of pain between both interventions. In the short-term, both complications (34.9% vs 29.7%; RD 0.05; 95% CI -0.10-0.21; p = 0.50; I2 = 48%) and days of hospitalization (MD -1.02; 95% CI -2.61-0.58; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%) showed no significant differences.

Surgical interventions showed superior results when compared to endoscopy in terms of complete long-term pain relief. The number of complications and length of hospitalization in both groups were similar.

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.