Endoscopic Drainage Of Pancreatic Fluid Collections Research Articles

The Role of Endoscopic Transpapillary Stenting of the Main Pancreatic Duct during the Endoscopic Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections.

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.

Outcomes of a single-step endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections using an electrocautery-enhanced coaxial lumen-apposing, self-expanding metal stent with and without fluoroscopy.

BackgroundFluoroscopy is often used during the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections (PFCs). An electrocautery-enhanced coaxial lumen-apposing, self-expanding metal stent (ELAMS) facilitates a single-step procedure and may avoid the need for fluoroscopy. This study compares the treatment outcomes using ELAMS with and without fluoroscopy.MethodsPatients with PFCs who had cystogastrostomy from January 2014 to February 2017 were enrolled. Two groups were studied based on fluoroscopy use. Technical success was defined as uneventful insertion of ELAMS at time of procedure. Clinical success was defined as (i) clinical resolution of symptoms after the procedure and (ii) >75% reduction in cyst size on computed tomography 8 weeks after stent placement. Adverse events including bleeding, stent migration, and infection were recorded.ResultsA total of 21 patients (13 males) had PFCs drainage with ELAMS in the study period. The mean age was 51.6 ± 14.2 years. Thirteen patients had walled-off necrosis while eight had a pancreatic pseudocyst. The mean size of the PFCs was 11.3 ± 3.3 cm. Fluoroscopy was used in seven cases (33%) and was associated with a longer procedure time compared to non-fluoroscopy (43.1 ± 10.4 vs 33.3 ± 10.5 min, P = 0.025). This association was independent of the size, location, or type of PFCs. Fluoroscopy had no effect on the technical success rates. In fluoroless procedures, the clinical resolution was 91% as compared to 71% in fluoroscopy procedures (P = 0.52) and the radiologic resolution was 57% as compared to 71% in fluoroscopy procedures (P = 0. 65). Three cases of stent migration/displacement occurred in the fluoroless procedures.ConclusionsELAMS may avoid the need for fluoroscopy during cystogastrostomy. Procedures without fluoroscopy were significantly shorter and fluoroscopy use had no impact on the technical or clinical success rates.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are common complications of acute pancreatitis. Asymptomatic collections do not require drainage while symptomatic or infected collections should be drained. Drainage can be performed surgically, percutaneously, or endoscopically. Recent studies have shown that endoscopic drainage of PFCs is equivalent or superior to surgical or percutaneous drainage, with less complications. Advances in tools and technology coupled with increasing expertise in management of PFCs has resulted in minimally invasive endoscopic drainage, by endosonographic guidance, being the preferred approach. New larger diameter lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have simplified the process of drainage. LAMS have also made performing direct endoscopic necrosectomy for walled-off necrosis (WON) easier. Technique, duration, frequency, and tools used for direct endoscopic necrosectomy are variable. Performing PFC drainage requires adequate and fundamental knowledge of diagnostic and basic therapeutic EUS.

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by use ofanovel biflanged stent with electrocautery-enhanced deliverysystem.

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by use ofanovel biflanged stent with electrocautery-enhanced deliverysystem.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections-revisited.

The development of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) is one of the most common complications of acute severe pancreatitis. Most of the acute pancreatic fluid collections resolve and do not require endoscopic drainage. However, a substantial proportion of acute necrotic collections get walled off and may require drainage. Endoscopic drainage of PFC is now the preferred mode of drainage due to reduced morbidity and mortality as compared to surgical or percutaneous drainage. With the introduction of new metal stents, the efficiency of endoscopic drainage has improved and the task of direct endoscopic necrosectomy has become easier. The requirement of re-intervention is less with new metal stents as compared to plastic stents. However, endoscopic drainage is not free of adverse events. Severe complications including bleeding, perforation, sepsis and embolism have been described with endoscopic approach to PFC. Therefore, the endoscopic management of PFC is a multidisciplinary affair and involves interventional radiologists as well as GI surgeons to deal with unplanned adverse events and failures. In this review we discuss the recent advances and controversies in the endoscopic management of PFC.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome in severe acute pancreatitis: clinical and imaging characteristics and outcomes in a cohort of 31 cases

Information regarding the natural history, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is limited. To describe clinical characteristics and outcomes of DPDS. A retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic endoscopy and hospital service database. Tertiary-referral center. We identified 31 DPDS cases from 1999 to 2006. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections. The relationship between demographic and clinical data with endoscopic treatment and clinical outcomes in DPDS cases. The median patient age was 53 years (range 20-83 years); 48% were men. The most common etiology of acute pancreatitis (AP) was biliary (55%) followed by idiopathic (27%). The median interval between the diagnoses of AP and DPDS was 56 days (range 3-251 days); the median follow-up after the last ERCP or surgical procedure was 7 months (range 0-90 months). The DPDS location included the following: pancreas head 6%, neck 58%, body 26%, and tail 10%. Twenty-six patients had initial endoscopic treatment (19 had long-term improvement; 7 failed treatment and required surgery) and 5 underwent immediate surgery. Mortality was 0%; 26% developed chronic pancreatitis (CP) and 16% diabetes mellitus (DM); 10% resolved completely, 45% had smaller fluid collections, and 26% patients were lost to follow-up. No relationship between demographic and clinical data with endoscopic and clinical outcomes was found. Endoscopic treatment temporarily improved DPDS, with a failure rate of 23%. Immediate surgery was not required in all cases. CP and/or pancreatic atrophy occurred relatively shortly after the DPDS diagnosis in 26% and DM in 16% of cases. DPDS did not lead to mortality. Early surgery may be considered after initially stabilizing the fluid collection with endoscopic therapy.

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes

Pancreatic-fluid collections are frequent sequelae of acute and chronic pancreatitis, and endoscopic drainage of these collections has gained acceptance as an alternative to surgical drainage. Patient data, collection characteristics, drainage technique, and outcomes were obtained through chart review and prospective follow-up for 116 patients with attempted endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic-fluid collections. A total of 116 patients presented with fluid collections classified as acute fluid collection (n = 5), necrosis (n = 8), acute pseudocyst (n = 30), chronic pseudocyst (n = 64), and pancreatic abscess (n = 9). The median diameter of the collection drained was 60 mm (15-275 mm). Median follow-up after drainage was 21 months. The drainage technique was transpapillary in 15 patients, transmural in 60, and both in 41. Successful resolution of symptoms and collection occurred in 87.9% of cases. No difference in success rates was observed between patients with acute pancreatitis and those with chronic pancreatitis. However, drainage of organized necrosis was associated with a significantly higher failure rate than other collections. No significant differences were observed regarding success when disease, drainage technique, or site of drainage was considered. Complications occurred in 13 patients (11%), and there were 6 deaths in the 30 days after drainage, including one that was procedure related. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections is successful in the majority of patients and is accompanied by an acceptable complication rate.