Introduction: though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results.
Methods: we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay.
Results: there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups.
Conclusion: endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.