In many endoscopy units, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have become standard equipment for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Yet before LAMS were available, endoscopists treated WON with much cheaper double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS), and in some practice settings, the cost of a single LAMS can exceed the entire remaining cost of endoscopic care for a patient with WON. The study from Kakadiya and colleagues, published in this issue of the journal [1], adds to a growing body of literature that challenges the routine use of LAMS for drainage of WON. The current study asks: When compared to metal stents, do plastic stents result in inferior patient outcomes?The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing LAMS to DPPS in the management of symptomatic WON. Enrolled patients had not undergone prior drainage procedures, and were estimated to have > 20% solid component in their walled-off collections by EUS imaging. Study participants received either a LAMS (15-or 16-mm diameter) or dilation of the transmural tract to 15 mm followed by placement of two DPPS. All drainage procedures were transgastric. Collections were reimaged at 72 hours, 3 weeks, and 3 months, and endoscopic necrosectomy was performed when there was either persistent or new-onset systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) or organ failure. LAMS were removed at 3 weeks and replaced with plastic stents if there was a persistent collection or a disconnected pancreatic duct. Treatment success, the primary outcome, was defined as both radio-Authors