Endoscopic Drainage of Walled Off Necrosis in a Child With Metal Stent

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. e17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zaheer Nabi ◽  
Sundeep Lakhtakia ◽  
Jahangeer Basha ◽  
Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy
Pancreatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. S168-S169
Author(s):  
Roberto Valente ◽  
Laura Zarantonello ◽  
Marco Del Chiaro ◽  
Miroslav Vujasinovic ◽  
Francisco Baldaque Silva ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (07) ◽  
pp. E1108-E1115
Author(s):  
Sudhir Maharshi ◽  
Shyam Sunder Sharma ◽  
Sandeep Ratra ◽  
Bharat Sapra ◽  
Dhruv Sharma

Abstract Background and study aims Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a known complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). There is no study comparing nasocystic irrigation with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) versus biflanged metal stent (BMS) in the management of WON. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of both the treatment strategies. Patients and methods This study was conducted on patients with symptomatic WON who were randomized to nasocystic irrigation with H2O2 (Group A) and BMS placement (Group B). Primary outcomes were clinical and technical success while secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events, need for additional procedures, duration of hospitalization, and mortality. Results Fifty patients were randomized into two groups. Group A (n = 25, age 37.8 ± 17.6 years, 16 men) and Group B (n = 25, age 41.8 ± 15.2 years, 17 men). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The most common etiology of pancreatitis was alcohol, observed in 27 (54 %) patients. Technical success (100 % vs 96 %, P = 0.98), clinical success (84 % vs 76 %, P = 0.76), requirement of additional procedures (16 % vs 24 %, P = 0.70) and adverse events (4 vs 7, P = 0.06) were comparable in both the groups. The duration to clinical success (34.4 ± 12 vs 14.8 ± 10.8 days, P = 0.001) and procedure time (36 ± 15 vs 18 ± 12 minutes, P = 0.01) were longer in Group A compared to Group B. Conclusions Nasocystic irrigation with H2O2 and BMS are equally effective in the management of WON but time to clinical success and procedure time is longer with nasocystic irrigation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. AB249
Author(s):  
Andres Sanchez Yague ◽  
Janak N. Shah ◽  
Thai Nguyen-Tang ◽  
Kenneth F. Binmoeller

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yen-I Chen ◽  
◽  
Kashi Callichurn ◽  
Avijit Chatterjee ◽  
Etienne Desilets ◽  
...  

Abstract Background & aims Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. Methods The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events. Discussion The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design. Trial registration Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document