Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart for studies selection.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Number of patients	Mean age (x ± SD)	Sex(Male/Female	Type of PFCs	Clinical Success	Technical success
Grobmyer 2009 USA	ED 2	55±	1/1	POPFC	2/2	2/2
	PD 6	55±	4/2		4/6	6/6
Onodera 2012 Japan	ED 6	67±	6/0	POPFC	6/6	6/6
	PD 18	66.9±	11/7		15/18	18/18
Azeem	ED 15	52±	8/7	POPFC	12/15	15/15
2012 China	PD 33	52.25±	14/33		26/33	32/33
Kwon 2013	ED 9	62.6±	4/5	POPFC	9/9	9/9
USA	PD 11	55.6±	5/6		8/11	11/11
Akshintala2013 USA	ED 41	47±	28/13	PP	29/41	37/41
	PD 40	52±	26/14		29/40	39/40
He 2016 China	ED 11	44.5±	5/6	WON	8/11	N/A
	PD 13	49.5±	7/6		9/13
Keane 2016 UK	ED 109	54±	60/49	WON + PP	89/109	100/109
	PD 55	51.75±	37/18		30/55	54/55
Futagawa	ED 12	60±	5/7	POPFC	11/12	11/12
2017 Japan	PD 21	64±	17/4		21/21	18/21
Jurgenson 2018 Germany	ED 39	60±	21/18	POPFC	38/39	N/A
	PD 59	66±	29/20		54/59
Tamura	ED 13	64.2±	10/3	POPFC	13/13	13/13
2019 Japan	PD 28	67±	16/12		28/28	28/28
Xie 2019 China	ED 18	45±	10/8	WON + PP	16/18	18/18
	PD 17	47.5±	9/8		9/17	17/17
Watanabe 2019 Japan	ED 11	66±	9/2	POPFC	3 / 4	4/4
	PD 4	53±	3/1		10/11	11/11
Efishat 2019 USA	ED 39	58.75±	19/20	POPFC	26/39	39/39
	PD 39	61.25±	19/20		23/39	38/39
Kuwatani 2020 Japan	ED 17	64.4±	N/A	POPFC	17/17	23/23
	PD 73	39.68±			72/73	41/41
Rana 2020 India	ED 23	36.13±	19/4	WON	20/23	23/23
	PD 41	39.68±	29/12		27/41	41/41
Wan 2020	ED 62	47±	39/23	WON + PP	53/62	62/62
China	PD 67	47.6±	41/26		51/67	67/67
Jayanta S. 2022 India	ED 116	39.1±	97/19	WON	105/116	114/116
	PD 102	40.8±	78/24		64/102	99/102

ED: Endoscopic drainage; PD: Percutaneous drainage; WON: Walled-off necrosis; POPFC: Post-operative pancreatic fluid collection; PP: Pancreatic pseudocysts; x ± SD: mean ± standard deviation; N/A: No information available.

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies table 1 continue.

Study	Mortality	Re-intervention	Hospital stay	Stent migration	Other adverse events
Onodera 2012 Japan	N/A	N/A	5.65 ± 0.87	N/A	N/A
			33 ± 10.5
Azeem	N/A	2	N/A	1	2
2012 China		6		0	2
Akshintala2013 USA	N/A	4	6.5 ± 6.7	N/A	6
		17	14.8 ± 14.4		6
He 2016 China	3	N/A	40 ± 25	N/A	6
	3		66 ± 37		10
Keane	0	N/A	11 ± 6	4	6
2016 UK	4		17 ± 15.7	0	2
Futagawa	0	N/A	21 ± 10.40	N/A	N/A
2017 Japan	6		22.75 ± 7.2
Jurgenson 2018 Germany	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	4
Tamura	N/A	2	N/A	N/A	N/A
2019 Japan		14
Xie 2019 China	N/A	2	9 ± 2.75	2	2
		9	21 ± 11.5	5	5
Watanab 2019 Japan	N/A	N/A	39.8 ± 17	N/A	N/A
			73 ± 36
Efishat 2019 USA	N/A	12	N/A	2	7
		16		0	3
Kuwatani 2020 Japan	N/A	N/A	14.25 ± 4.73	N/A	2
			28.5 ± 2.09		4
Rana 2020 India	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	5
	5				12
Wan 2020	3	6	20.25 ± 17.35	0	19
China	7	35	40.53 ± 20.9	4	53
Jayanta S. 2022 India	3	25	7.5 ± 1.66	1	6
	30	51	28 ± 3.9	22	28

N/A: Not available; other adverse events: adverse events including bleeding, abdominal pain, perforation, pancreatic fistula etc.

Figure 2. (a) Forest plot of Technical success. (b) Forest plot of Clinical success.

Figure 3. (a) Forest plot of adverse events. (b) Forest plot of Stent Migration.

Figure 4. (a) Forest plot of Hospital Stay. (b) Forest plot of Mortality.

Figure 5. Forest plot of Re-intervention.

Data availability statement

All data related to this study is available, please send mail to Yang Jianfeng for further information.