Endoscopic transmural drainage tailored to quantity of necrotic debris versus laparoscopic transmural internal drainage for walled-off necrosis in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled trial.

Abstract Background and aims Both endoscopic and laparoscopic transmural internal drainage are practiced for drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON) following acute pancreatitis (AP) but the superiority of either is not established. Our aim was to compare transperitoneal laparoscopic drainage with endoscopic drainage using either lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) or plastic stents tailored to the amount of necrotic debris in WON. Methods In a randomized controlled trial, adequately powered to exclude the null hypothesis, patients with symptomatic WON were randomized to either endoscopic or laparoscopic drainage. In the endoscopy group, two plastic stents were placed if the WON contained 1/3rd. Primary outcome was resolution of WON within 4 weeks without re-intervention for secondary infection. Secondary outcome was overall success (resolution of WON at 6 months) and adverse events. Results Forty patients were randomized: 20 to each group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Primary outcome was similar between the groups [16 (80%) in laparoscopy and 15 (75%) in endoscopy group; p = 0.89]. The overall success was similar [18 (90%) in laparoscopy vs. 17 (85%) in endoscopy; p = 0.9]. Median duration of hospital stay was shorter in endoscopy group [4 (4–8) vs. 6 days (5–9); p = 0.03]. Adverse events were comparable between the groups. Conclusion Laparoscopic drainage was not superior to endoscopic transmural drainage with placement of multiple plastic stent or LAMS depending on the amount of necrotic debris for symptomatic WON in AP. The hospital stay was shorter with the endoscopic approach.