Lumen apposing metal stents for pancreatic fluid collections: Recognition and management of complications

Table 1 Complication rates in lumen apposing metal stents case series

Author	Year	Single/multi-center	n	PFC type	Bleeding	Perforation	Migration	Buried stent	Failure to deploy
Itoi et al[11]	2012	Single	15	6 WON, 9 PC2	0%	0%	7%	0%	0%
Yamamoto et al[12]	2013	Multi	9	4 WON, 5 PC	11%	0%	11%	0%	0%
Chandran et al[14]	2015	Multi	54	9 WON, 39 PC	6%	0%	19%	6%	2%
Shah et al[10]	2015	Multi	33	11 WON, 18 PC	0%	0%	3%	0%	9%
Walter et al[39]	2015	Multi	61	46 WON, 15 PC	0%	2%	10%	0%	2%
Rinninella et al[24]	2015	Multi	93	4 APFC, 37 PC, 52 WON	1%	2%	1%	0%	1%
Mukai et al[40]	2015	Single	21	19 WON, 2 PC	10%	0%	19%	0%	0%
1Mukai et al[17]	2015	Single	43	WON	0%	2%	5%	0%	0%
1Siddiqui et al[19]	2016	Multi	86	WON	7%	3%	0%	3%	2%
1Bang et al[25]	2016	Single	12	WON	25%	0%	0%	17%	-
1Lang et al[26]	2016	Single	19	9 WON 10 PC	21%	0%	0%	0%	-
1Bapaye et al[18]	2017	Single	72	WON	3%	0%	3%	0%	0%
1Ang et al[16]	2017	Multi	12	8 WON, 8 PC3	0%	0%	8%	0%	-
Lakhtakia et al[37]	2017	Single	205	WON	3%	1%	1%	1%	1%

¹Study includes multiple stent types, only LAMS cases are included here;

²PFC type not explicitly defined, inferred based on description of cyst contents;

³Study includes patients with multiple stent types. Number of subjects is not equal to sum of PFC types. LAMS: Lumen-apposing metal stents; WON: Walled off necrosis; PC: Pseudocyst; APFC: Acute pancreatic fluid collection.