Drainage of Complex Walled-Off Pancreatic Fluid Collections in LAMS Era: A Multicenter Study

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the patients. Patients with WOPFCs requiring LAMS plus additional drainage methods including additional LAMS, percutaneous drainage, or surgical debridement were categorized as “complex WOPFCS” or classified as group A whereas ones requiring only single were grouped as “noncomplex WOPFCS” or group B.

Baseline characteristics (n = 31)	Group A (n = 6)	Group B (n = 25)	Univariate value	Multivariate value
Age, years (SD)	42 (19)	49 (19)	0.548	0.388
Male sex, n (%)	3 (50)	16 (64)	0.527	0.543
Walled-off necrosis, n (%)	6 (100)	15 (60)	0.060	0.063
Mean estimated solid component proportion (%)	17.8	35.8	0.025	0.025
Etiology of pancreatitis n (%)			0.364	0.725
Alcoholic pancreatitis	3 (50)	7 (28)
Gallstone pancreatitis	1 (17)	12 (48)
Others	2 (33)	6 (24)
Chronic pancreatitis, n (%)	0 (0)	7 (28)	0.141	0.150
Pancreatic duct leakage, n (%)	4 (67)	5 (20)	0.024	0.023
Size of collection, cm (SD)	18 (6)	13 (3)	0.021	0.021
Presence of paracolic gutter extension, n (%)	3 (50)	7 (28)	0.301	0.317
Presence of pelvic extension, n (%)	2 (33)	2 (8)	0.096	0.103