Background/Aims: Malignant biliary strictures (MBS) are very aggressive and cannot be diagnosed in the early stages due to their asymptomatic nature. Stenting the stricture area of the biliary tree is palliative treatment but has poor survival time. Radiofrequency ablation plus stent (RFA+S) have been recently used to improve the survival and stent patency time in patients with MBS. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we tried to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation. Materials and Methods: Study search up to December 2021 was performed in different medical databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane library, etc. We selected eligible studies reporting survival time, stent patency time, and adverse events in patients with MBS. We compare the outcomes of RFA+S and stent-alone treatment groups. Results: A total of 15 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies) with 1815 patients were included for meta-analysis of which 701 patients were in RFA+S group and 1114 patients in the stent-alone group. Pooled mean difference of survival time was 2.88 months (95% CI: 1.78-3.97) and pooled mean difference of stent patency time was 2.11 months (95% CI: 0.91-3.30) and clinical success risk ratio was 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01–1.09). Risk ratios for adverse events are given; Bleeding 0.84 (95% CI: 0.34-2.11), abdominal pain 1.06 (95% CI: 0.79-1.40), pancreatitis 0.93 (95% CI: 0.43-2.01), cholangitis 1.07 (95% CI: 0.72-1.59), and stent dysfunction 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.07). Conclusions: Radiofrequency ablation is involved in increased survival and stent patency time for MBS patients. With the help of better techniques, adverse events can be limited.

Background Patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) are still challenging to treat safely and effectively. Recently, double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS), bi-flanged metallic stents (BFMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been employed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS-guided) drainage. However, there is little solid evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of using stents. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the LAMS and the PS. Method Till July 2022, a thorough database search was done, and studies that met the criteria were chosen. By using the RevMan software, the technical and clinical success and other secondary outcomes were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed between the LAMS and the BFMS. Results Fifteen studies (two randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational) with 687 patients receiving metal stents and 771 patients receiving plastic stents were selected for final analysis. There was no significant risk of bias or publication bias. The odds ratios (OR) for technical and clinical success were 0.36 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.08, 1.52) and 2.26 (95%CI 1.62, 3.15), respectively. The OR for overall adverse events was 0.74 (95% CI 0.41, 1.34). In subgroup analysis, the LAMS and the BFMS showed the same outcomes. Conclusion Compared to DPS, LAMS had better clinical outcomes and fewer side effects when treating patients with WON.