Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts cystoenterostomy and transpapillary drainage

1996 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 404
Author(s):  
E Della ◽  
Libera Jr ◽  
ES Siqueira ◽  
CO Brant ◽  
M Morais ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 761
Author(s):  
Mateusz Jagielski ◽  
Marek Jackowski

Endotherapy is a recognized, widely available, and minimally invasive treatment method for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) formed in the course of acute pancreatitis (AP). The use of endoscopic techniques in the treatment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) disruption due to AP remains unclear. In this article, a comprehensive review of current literature referencing our observations was performed to identify publications on the role of MPD stenting in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of PFCs resulting from AP. In this paper, we attempt to clarify this most controversial aspect of endotherapy for PFCs based on existing knowledge and our own experience regarding the endoscopic treatment of AP sequelae. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography should be performed in all patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis to assess the integrity of the main pancreatic duct and to implement endotherapy if pancreatic duct disruption is detected. Passive transpapillary drainage is an effective method for treating MPD disruption in the course of necrotizing AP and is one of the key components of endoscopic therapy for local pancreatic necrosis. Conversely, in patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, passive transpapillary drainage reduces the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment and should not be used even in cases of MPD disruption during transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. In conclusion, the use of transpapillary drainage should depend on the type of the PFC. This conclusion is of great clinical importance, as it can help improve the results of pancreatic endotherapy for fluid collections resulting from AP.


2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (02) ◽  
pp. 061-067
Author(s):  
Hemanta K. Nayak ◽  
Sandeep Kumar ◽  
Uday C. Ghoshal ◽  
Samir Mohindra ◽  
Namita Mohindra ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background: We evaluated short‑ and long‑term results of endoscopic drainage (a minimally invasive nonsurgical treatment) of pancreatic pseudocysts (PPCs) and factors associated with its success at a multilevel teaching hospital in Northern India, as such data are scanty from India. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of records of consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of PPC from January 2002 to June 2013 was undertaken. Results: Seventy‑seven patients (56 males), median age 36 years (range, 15–73), underwent endoscopic drainage of PPC with 98% technical success. Pseudocysts drained were symptomatic (duration 11 weeks, range, 8–68), large (volume 582 mL [range, 80–2706]), located in head (n = 32, 46%), body and tail (n = 37, 54%), and infected (n = 39, 49%). Drainage procedures included cystogastrostomy (n = 54, 78%), cystoduodenostomy (n = 9, 13%), transpapillary drainage (n = 2, 3%), and multiple route (n = 4, 6%), with additional endoscopic nasocystic drainage (ENCD) in 41 (59%). Sixty‑nine patients were followed up (median 28 months, range 2–156; other eight lost to follow‑up). Complications (n = 21, 30%) included stent occlusion and migration (13), bleeding (5), perforation (2), and death (1). Endoscopic procedure had to be repeated in 19 patients (28%; 16 for sepsis, 3 for recurrence). The reasons for additional nonendoscopic treatment (n = 8, 12%) included incomplete cyst resolution (3), recurrence (2), bleeding (1), and perforation (2). Overall success rate of endoscopic drainage was 88%. Whereas infected pseudocysts were associated with poorer outcome (odds ratio [OR] 0.016; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.001–0.037), placement of ENCD led to better results (OR 11.85; 95% CI 1.03–135.95). Conclusion: Endoscopic drainage is safe and effective for PPC.


1995 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 424 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.A. Howell ◽  
G.A. Lehman ◽  
T.H. Baron ◽  
S. Sherman ◽  
W.G. Parsons ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. AB580-AB581
Author(s):  
Galileu F. Farias ◽  
Thiago A. Visconti ◽  
Caio V. Tranquillini Goncalves ◽  
Hugo G. Guedes ◽  
Rafael K. Martins ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document