Systematic review comparing endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical pancreatic pseudocyst drainage

Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Design	Study duration	Follow-up duration1	Interventions	Sample size	Pseudocyst defined	Inclusion criteria or indications for intervention
Varadarajulu et al[8] (United States)	Single center RCT	Jan 2009-Dec 2009	24	EUS vs open cystogastrostomy	20:20	Yes	Pseudocyst > 6 cm and adjacent to stomach
							History of acute or chronic pancreatitis
							Persistent pain
							Complications of pseudocyst
Melman et al[9] (United States)	Single center retrospective	Mar 1999-Aug 2007	9.5	EUS vs laparoscopic vs open cystogastrostomy	45:16:22	Yes	Symptomatic pseudocyst
Varadarajulu et al[10] (United States)	Single center retrospective	Jul 2005-Jun 2007	24	EUS vs Open cystogastrostomy	20:10	Yes	NA
Park et al[11] (South Korea)	Single center RCT	Jan 2004-Dec 2007	25 - 27	EGD ± R-EUS vs EUS	29:31	Yes	Symptomatic pseudocyst > 4 wk
Varadarajulu et al[12] (United States)	Single center RCT	May 2007-Oct 2007	NA	EGD vs EUS	15:15	Yes	Symptomatic pseudocyst > 4 wk
Kahaleh et al[13] (United States)	Single center retrospective	2000-2005	11	EGD vs EUS	53:46	Yes	NA
Morton et al[14] (United States)	National multicenter retrospective	Jan 1997-Dec 2001	NA	Percutaneous vs Surgical drainage	8121:6409	Yes	NA
Heider et al[15] (United States)	Single center retrospective	1984-1995	NA	Percutaneous vs Surgical drainage	66:66	Yes	NA
Adams et al[16] (United States)	Single center retrospective	1965-1991	NA	Percutaneous vs Surgical drainage	52:42	No	Percutaneous drainage: Symptomatic pseudocyst > 5 cm without PD dilation
Lang et al[17] (United States)	Single center retrospective	Jan 1978-Jun 1988	NA	Percutaneous vs Surgical drainage	12:14	Yes	Wall thickness < 3 mm

¹Mean duration of follow-up shown in months. RCT: Randomized controlled trial; NA: Not available; R-EUS: Radial echoendoscope; PD: Pancreatic duct; EGD: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy.