Abstract
The effectiveness of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting (PPDS) in preventing post-ampullectomy pancreatitis (PAP) at the time of endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has been reported, however, results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at the use of PPDS in reducing PAP as well as overall post-ampullectomy complications.BACKGROUNDThe effectiveness of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting (PPDS) in preventing post-ampullectomy pancreatitis (PAP) at the time of endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has been reported, however, results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at the use of PPDS in reducing PAP as well as overall post-ampullectomy complications.Multiple databases were searched through May 2023 for studies reporting on EA. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of PAP, with and without PPDS. Pooled rates of adverse events including perforation, delayed bleeding, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were assessed. Random effects model was used for our meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics.METHODSMultiple databases were searched through May 2023 for studies reporting on EA. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of PAP, with and without PPDS. Pooled rates of adverse events including perforation, delayed bleeding, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were assessed. Random effects model was used for our meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics.Thirty-four studies (14 case series, 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) with 1868 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of PAP was 12.3% (CI 10.3-14.5). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of PAP among patients with PPDS, 11.9% (CI 8.9-15.7) and without PPDS, 16.6% (CI 13.4-20.4), RR 0.8 (CI 0.51-1.28), p = 0.4. In terms of severe PAP, we found no difference between the two groups. The overall pooled rates of successful en-bloc and piecemeal resection were 74.8% (CI 67.3-81.1) and 25.1% (CI 19-32.4). Additionally, pooled rates of ampullary stenosis, post procedural bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were 3.6%, 11.1%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 1.3%, respectively.RESULTSThirty-four studies (14 case series, 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) with 1868 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of PAP was 12.3% (CI 10.3-14.5). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of PAP among patients with PPDS, 11.9% (CI 8.9-15.7) and without PPDS, 16.6% (CI 13.4-20.4), RR 0.8 (CI 0.51-1.28), p = 0.4. In terms of severe PAP, we found no difference between the two groups. The overall pooled rates of successful en-bloc and piecemeal resection were 74.8% (CI 67.3-81.1) and 25.1% (CI 19-32.4). Additionally, pooled rates of ampullary stenosis, post procedural bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were 3.6%, 11.1%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 1.3%, respectively.Our analysis shows that PPDS at the time of EA does not offer a significant protective effect against PAP. While the incidence of PAP was higher among the no PPDS group, it is plausible that this is more likely due to variation among studies in terms of lesion size, length/size of pancreatic stent used and etiology of ampullary lesions. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.CONCLUSIONSOur analysis shows that PPDS at the time of EA does not offer a significant protective effect against PAP. While the incidence of PAP was higher among the no PPDS group, it is plausible that this is more likely due to variation among studies in terms of lesion size, length/size of pancreatic stent used and etiology of ampullary lesions. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.