Clinical usefulness and current problems of pancreatic duct stenting for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis

Table 1 Frequency of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis n(%)

Ref.	No. ofpatients	Post-ERCP pancreatitis	Surgery	Death
Freeman et al[1], 1996	2347	127 (5.4)	3	1
Loperfido et al[2], 1998	2769	36 (1.3)	2	1
Masci et al[3], 2001	2444	44 (1.8)	-	0
Freeman et al[4],2001	1963	131 (6.7)	1	1
Cheng et al[5], 2006	1115	168 (15.1)	-	1
Wang et al[6], 2009	2691	116 (4.3)	0	0
Sakai et al[7], 2013	720	14 (1.9)	0	0
Total	14049	636 (4.5)	6 (0.04)	4 (0.03)

ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

Table 2 Pathogenic frequency of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in the pancreatic duct stenting group and the non-pancreatic duct stenting group

Ref.	No. of patients	Study design	No-stent (%)	Stent group (%)	P-value
Smithline et al[8], 1993	93	RCT	18	14	0.299
Tarnasky et al[9], 1998	80	RCT	26	7	0.03
Elton et al[10], 1998	194	Retrospective c.c.	12.5	0.7	< 0.003
Vandervoot et al[11], 1999	42	Prospective c.c.	28.1	0	0.08
Aizawa et al[12], 2001	40	Retrospective c.c.	6	0	0.11
Fogel et al[13], 2002	436	Retrospective c.c.	28.2	13.5	< 0.05
Norton et al[14], 2002	28	Retrospective c.c.	11.1	20	> 0.05
Fazel et al[15], 2002	76	RCT	28	5	< 0.05
Freeman et al[16], 2004	225	Prospective c.c.	66.7	14.4	0.06
Catalano et al[17], 2004	103	Retrospective c.c.	16.7	3.3	0.1
Tsuchiya et al[18], 2007	64	RCT	12.5	3.1	> 0.05
Sofuni et al[19], 2007	201	RCT	13.6	3.2	0.019
Ito et al[20], 2008	113	Retrospective c.c.	22	4.7	0.01
Harada et al[21], 2010	121	Retrospective c.c.	5.2	12.7	0.21
Ito et al[22], 2010	70	RCT	23	2.9	0.0096
Sakai et al[23], 2011	55	Retrospective c.c.	25	0	0.03
Sofuni et al[24], 2011	425	RCT	14.6	9.4	0.076
Sakai et al[25], 2011	198	Retrospective c.c.	11.1	3	0.049
Kawaguchi et al[26], 2012	120	RCT	13.3	1.7	0.03

RCT: Randomized controlled trial; C.C.: Case controlled study; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.