Pancreatic Stent Research Articles

Revised Clinical Practice Guideline of Korean Pancreatobiliary Association for Common Bile Duct Stones: Endoscopic Management of Common Bile Duct Stones

For the optimal treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones, several facts should be considered before or during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic antibiotics is necessary for the patients with high risk of post ERCP cholangitis and cessation of anticoagulant should be considered for prevention of complications associated with post ERCP bleeding. Furthermore, endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation can be replaced with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with bleeding tendency such as chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, thrombocytopenia etc. Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent can be helpful in reducing post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) but caution is required as excessive attempts for selective cannulation into pancreatic duct for stent insertion can cause PEP. If gallbladder stone is present and treatment for CBD stones has been completed, prophylactic cholecystectomy should be performed selectively after consideration of patient’s condition.

Effectiveness of endoscopic papillectomy with stent placement in pancreatic and bile ducts for treating duodenal papillary adenoma: a retrospective study

BackgroundDuodenal papillary adenoma, a potentially malignant benign tumor is primarily treated with endoscopic papillectomy. Despite its efficacy, endoscopic papillectomy has a high complication rate. This study investigates whether pancreatic duct and common bile duct stent placement can mitigate these complications.MethodsIn a retrospective observational analysis, 79 patients with duodenal papillary adenoma, treated with endoscopic papillectomy at our center, were studied. The cohort included patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy with no stents placement, common bile duct stent placement alone, pancreatic duct stent placement alone, or stents placement in both ducts. We assessed the outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy, including complete resection rate and recurrence rate as the primary and secondary outcomes respectively. In the meantime, the incidence of complications were also analysed as the safety outcomes.ResultsComplete resection rates did not significantly differ between patients with or without stent placement (85.7% P group vs. 89.2% N-P group, P = 0.64). Early complication rates were similar across groups. However, significant reduction in common bile duct stenosis was observed in the stenting group (0% B group vs. 10.5% N-B group, P = 0.03). Furthermore, stent placement correlated with lower adenoma recurrence rates during follow-up (2.4% P group vs. 16.2% N-P group, P = 0.03; 2.4% B group vs. 15.8% N-B group, P = 0.04).ConclusionsPancreatic duct and common bile duct stent placement in endoscopic papillectomy may decrease late complications, particularly common bile duct stenosis, and reduce the recurrence of duodenal papillary adenoma.Trial registrationThis study received approval from the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of Beijing Friendship Hospital (Approval No. BFHHZS20230203), and retrospectively registered in www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06301048, Initial Release date: 02/18/2024, Last Public Release date: 03/03/2024).

Application of 3D Printing to Design and Manufacture Pancreatic Duct Stent and Animal Experiments.

Objective: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a common and challenging complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), occurring in 2% to 46% of cases. Despite various pancreaticojejunostomy techniques, an effective method to prevent POPF has not been established. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a novel 3D-printed biodegradable pancreatic duct stent to simplify the surgical process of pancreaticojejunostomy, reduce anastomotic complexity, and minimize postoperative complications. Methods: Data from 32 patients undergoing total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy were utilized. Preoperative CT scans were transformed into 3D reconstructions to guide the design and printing of customized stents using polylactic acid (PLA). The stents were assessed for mechanical integrity, surface texture, and thermal stability. Animal experiments were conducted on 16 mini pigs, with the experimental group receiving the novel stent and the control group receiving traditional silicone stents. Results: The 3D-printed stents demonstrated accurate dimensional replication and mechanical reliability. In the animal experiments, the experimental group showed no significant difference in postoperative complications compared to the control group. At 4 weeks post-surgery, CT scans revealed well-healed anastomoses in both groups, with no significant inflammation or other complications. Histological examination and 3D reconstruction models confirmed good healing and device positioning in the experimental group. Conclusion: The 3D-printed biodegradable pancreatic duct stent offers a promising solution for pancreaticojejunostomy, with comparable safety and efficacy to traditional methods. Further research is needed to validate its clinical application.

The impact of externalized pancreatic stents in our practice: A comparison of outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in two time periods

BackgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula is a severe complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Using an externalized pancreatic stent is a potential mitigation strategy not previously studied in Latin America. MethodsPancreaticoduodenectomies performed in a single center between 2006 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical variables were collected with a 90-day follow-up according to stent intervention: externalized stent (ES), internal stent (IS), or no stent. Before and after ES implementation (2016) periods were also compared. ResultsOut of 237 patients, 77 (32.5 ​%) had an ES, 24 (10.1 ​%) an IS, and 136 (57.4 ​%) none. No difference was found in the overall incidence of POPF. The use of an ES was associated with less type C POPF, despite having an increased risk for fistula development. PD performed after 2016 were also associated with a reduced incidence of type C POPF, surgical reintervention requirement, POPF-associated mortality, and intrahospital stay. ConclusionsThe use of an ES is a low-cost intervention that can mitigate POPF severity in high-risk patients.

Real-world evidence comparing early and late pancreatic stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

Abstract Background and study aims Pancreatic stenting effectively lowers the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and reduces its severity. However, limited research has been conducted to determine the optimal timing for pancreatic stent placement. Our objective was to evaluate whether early pancreatic stent placement (EPSP) is more effective than late pancreatic stent placement (LPSP) in preventing PEP among patients with naive papilla. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed 590 patients with difficult biliary cannulation using the pancreatic guidewire technique, who were divided into EPSP and LPSP groups. In the EPSP group, a pancreatic stent was placed immediately before/after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) or endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Conversely, in the LPSP group, a pancreatic stent was placed after partial/all completion of major endoscopic procedures. Results From November 2017 to May 2023, 385 patients were in the EPSP group and 205 in the LPSP group. EPSP was associated with a decreased PEP occurrence compared with LPSP (2.9% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.012). Similarly, hyperamylasemia was lower in the EPSP group (19.7% vs. 27.8%; P = 0.026). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using multivariable analysis and propensity score–matched (PSM) analysis also validated these findings. Conclusions Early pancreatic stent placement reduced the incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia compared with late pancreatic stent placement. Our findings favor pancreatic stenting immediately before/after ERC or EST.

Preoperative risk-stratified analysis: External versus internal pancreatic stents in pancreatoduodenectomy

BackgroundSeveral risk-stratified studies have compared the outcomes of external and internal pancreatic stents in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), but no resolute standard for a fistula-mitigation strategy exists. The study investigated the efficacy of these stents in a preoperative risk-stratified setting. MethodsData from 285 patients who underwent PD with pancreaticojejunostomy using an external or internal stent from 2015 to 2023 were analyzed. The preoperative pancreatic fistula score (preFRS) was used to classify patients into low-risk (preFRS: 0–5) and high-risk (preFRS: 6–8) groups. ResultsPreFRS accurately predicted the risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) as 0% and >40% in patients with preFRS ≤1 and ≥7, respectively. Although no significant difference was observed in postoperative outcomes in low-risk patients, the external stent significantly reduced CR-POPF (21% vs 44%, P = .024) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH, 0% vs 19%, P = .02) in high-risk patients, leading to the superiority of the external stent in the entire cohort in terms of CR-POPF (12% vs 24%, P = .033) and PPH (1% vs 11%, P = .013). There were no significant differences in stent-related complications or pancreatic dysfunction. External stent malfunction occurred in 14% and significantly affected CR-POPF development in both low- (20% vs 0%, P < .01) and high-risk groups (60% vs 14%, P = .021). ConclusionThe external pancreatic stent showed a more beneficial effect on CR-POPF and PPH, especially in high-risk patients, without increasing other complications. Risk-stratified strategy and improving stent management might enhance postoperative outcomes.

Can early precut reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with difficult bile duct cannulation?

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with a variety of adverse events (AEs). One of the most important AEs is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which is most common in cases of difficult biliary cannulation. Although the precut technique has been reported as a PEP risk factor, recent studies indicate that early precut could reduce PEP, and that precut itself is not a risk factor. To evaluate the safety of the precut technique, especially in terms of PEP. We conducted a retrospective study, spanning the period from November 2011 through December 2021. It included 1556 patients, aged ≥ 20 years, who underwent their initial ERCP attempt for biliary disease with a naïve papilla at the Kawasaki University General Medical Center. We compared the PEP risk between the early precut and the delayed precut group. The PEP incidence rate did not significantly differ between the precut and non-precut groups. However, the PEP incidence was significantly lower in the early precut group than the delayed precut group (3.5% vs 10.5%; P = 0.02). The PEP incidence in the delayed precut group without pancreatic stent insertion (17.3%) was significantly higher compared to other cases (P < 0.01). Our findings indicate that early precut may reduce PEP incidence. If the precut decision is delayed, a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent PEP.

Risk factors and a prediction model for pain recurrence after pancreatic stent removal in painful chronic pancreatitis.

Endoscopic pancreatic stenting (EPS) is an effective treatment modality for painful chronic pancreatitis. However, little is known about the factors that cause pain recurrence after stent removal, and there are no clear criteria for stent removal. We aimed to develop a prediction model for pain recurrence by identifying its risk factors. We retrospectively reviewed 95 patients who underwent EPS due to pain for the first time using a single plastic stent between January 2007 and July 2022 at our institute. Univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify the risk factors for pain recurrence, and a prediction model was developed based on the identified factors. Of the 95 enrolled patients, 89 (93.7%) achieved pain relief and 73 (76.8%) did stent removal. Of the 69 patients with a follow-up period ≥6 months after stent removal, 29 (42.0%) had pain recurrence during the median follow-up period of 59 months. Serum lipase level (p = 0.034) and pancreatic parenchymal thickness (p = 0.022) on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging were identified as independent risk factors for pain recurrence. The prediction model based on the identified factors had good discrimination ability, with a concordance index of 0.74, and could stratify pain recurrence rates. We identified the risk factors and developed a new prediction model for pain recurrence following stent removal. This model might be useful for decision-making in pancreatic stent management, such as deciding whether to remove a pancreatic stent, continue EPS, or convert to surgery.

Troubleshooting the migration of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage stent to avoidrepuncture.

Watch a video of this article.

EP542 - ERCP removal of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) after 25 months

Abstract This abstract highlights a less-explored complication associated with Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) – the delayed removal of pancreatic or biliary stents. The case study involves a 45-year-old woman with a Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) in place for an extended period of 2 years. Initially, the patient sought medical attention due to episodic epigastric pain, revealing gallstones partially obstructing the common bile duct. An initial ERCP aimed to extract the stones, but a large stone proved challenging to remove. Subsequently, a temporary Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stent (FC-SEMS) was inserted. A follow-up ERCP was planned to remove both the stone and the stent. However, the patient experienced intolerability during the procedure and developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, leading her to decline the second ERCP. In the following year, the patient faced transient common bile duct (CBD) blockage and ascending cholangitis episodes. After thorough discussion with the medical team, she consented to a second ERCP. During this procedure, it was discovered that the SEMS had ingrowth of duodenal mucosa at the proximal end. Successfully removing the SEMS and stone required using a needle knife to dissect the duodenal mucosa of the stent and flipping the stent inside out, as the tissue around the stent was challenging to access. This case underscores the challenges and risks associated with prolonged stent retention. The abstract strongly recommends against leaving the stent in place for an extended duration and advocates for attempting stent removal through ERCP before considering a surgical approach.

Development of irreversible pancreatic ductal change triggered by pancreatic duct stenting in chronic pancreatitis.

Stent-induced ductal change is a complication of endoscopic pancreatic stent placement for chronic pancreatitis, potentially leading to irreversible changes that may contribute to pancreatic dysfunction. This study aimed to examine the long-term outcomes of stent-induced ductal change and evaluate factors that correlate with the development of irreversible ductal changes. Between January 2008 and December 2022, 52/223 patients with chronic pancreatitis in whom an S-type plastic stent was successfully placed from the main papilla for duct stricture were detected with stent-induced ductal change on pancreatography at stent removal. We retrospectively investigated the clinical features of patients whose main pancreatic duct was reassessed by endoscopic pancreatography after >1month without stent and whose residual stent-induced ductal change was irreversible. The patients with chronic pancreatitis with stent-induced ductal change (n=28) (elevated change, 15; stricture change, 13) were evaluated using follow-up pancreatography. Eleven patients (39.3%) showed residual change associated with stent-induced ductal change, the degree of which was partial improvement, no change, and obstructive change in one, seven, and three patients, respectively. Stricture changes during stent removal and duration of stent placement that triggered ductal changes were significantly associated with the development of residual ductal changes. Irreversible stent-induced ductal change in patients with chronic pancreatitis was associated with stricture changes in the main pancreatic duct and continued plastic-stent placement. Careful evaluation of the pancreatic duct is required during plastic-stent placement. Early plastic-stent removal may result in an effective response to the development of stent-induced ductal change.

Precut Over a Pancreatic Duct Stent Versus Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundPrecut over a pancreatic duct stent (PPDS) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) with immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are techniques employed to promote biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in cases of challenging biliary cannulation. However, limited data are available to compare the efficacy of these two pancreatic stent-assisted precut sphincterotomy techniques.AimsThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of PPDS versus TPS.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between April 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023. According to the selected cannulation approaches, patients were assigned to two groups. In the PPDS group, a pancreatic duct stent was initially placed, followed by needle-knife precut over the stent. In the TPS group, transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy was initially performed, followed by immediate pancreatic stent placement. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) between the two groups were analysed.ResultsAmong 864 patients who underwent ERCP, 46 patients were equally enrolled in the two groups. Selective bile duct cannulation was successfully achieved in 42 out of 46 (91.3%) cases using the PPDS and in 32 out of 46 (69.6%) cases using TPS technique alone, indicating significantly higher success rate of bile duct cannulation with PPDS compared to TPS (91.3% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.009). The overall success rates for bile duct cannulation were 93.5% and 97.8% in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference identified (P = 0.307). PEP occurred in 0 and 4 (8.7%) cases in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (8.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.117). There were no cases of bleeding or perforation in either group.ConclusionsBoth PPDS and TPS followed by immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are viable options. TPS stands out for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while PPDS is more appropriate for patients who are at a high-risk of developing PEP.

Incidence of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Rectal Indomethacin vs. Compounded Rectal Diclofenac Prophylaxis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a 3-15% risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of PEP, but its cost has increased more than 20-fold over the past decade. Rectal diclofenac is also used to prevent PEP but is not commercially available in the United States. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PEP after administration of commercially available rectal indomethacin versus compounded rectal diclofenac and assess financial implications. ERCP cases at our institution with administration of 100mg rectal indomethacin or 100mg compounded rectal diclofenac between May 2018 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and severity of PEP was compared between the indomethacin (n = 728) and diclofenac (n = 304) groups. Risk factors (young age, female sex, history of pancreatitis or PEP, sphincterotomy during procedure, pancreatic indication, trainee involvement) and protective factors (prior sphincterotomy, pancreatic duct stenting) for PEP were compared between groups. 60 patients (8.2%) in the rectal indomethacin group and 25 patients (8.2%) in the compounded rectal diclofenac group developed PEP, resulting in moderate or severe PEP in 9 (15.0%) and 2 (8.0%) patients, respectively. The compounded rectal diclofenac group had more trainee involvement (46.1% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.0001) and more prior sphincterotomy cases (15.8% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0193) compared to the rectal indomethacin group; no statistically significant differences were observed in all other risk and protective factors. Following switch to compounded rectal diclofenac, institutional annual cost savings amounted to $441,460.62 and patient charge decreased 45-fold. This retrospective single-center real-world analysis showed similar efficacy of rectal indomethacin and compounded rectal diclofenac in preventing PEP but demonstrates substantial cost savings after switching to compounded rectal diclofenac.

Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

A Comparative Study of Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy, Double Guidewire Technique, and Precut Sphincterotomy in Difficult Naive Biliary Cannulations in a Tertiary Care Center in Western India

Abstract Introduction Difficult biliary cannulation leads to prolonged papillary manipulation and repeated attempts at cannulation are known to increase the risk of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. This study aims to compare the efficacy and complications of three rescue methods, transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TP), double guidewire technique (DGW), and precut sphincterotomy (precut) in difficult common bile duct (CBD) cannulations. Methods Seventy-six patients (&gt;18 years of age) with a native papilla undergoing ERCP for biliary cannulation were recruited. Those who had inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulations (&gt;1) were included. A pancreatic stent was inserted in all cases. They underwent either DGW (n = 25), precut (n = 25), or TP (n = 26) as rescue methods and were compared in terms of the success of cannulation and post-ERCP complications. Results Of the total 76 cases, 82% were for benign indications, the most common being choledocholithiasis (69.7%). Jaundice was noted in 52% (n = 13/25), 60% (n = 15/25), and 38.5% (n = 10/26) of the DGW, precut, and TP cases, while 40% (n = 10/25), 12% (n = 3/25), and 30.8% (n = 8/26), respectively, were in cholangitis at presentation. The most common type of papilla was type 1 overall and each subgroup. While successful cannulation was achieved in 88.5% (n = 23/26) of TP and 84% (n = 21/25) of the DGW group, only 64% (n = 16/25) of the precut cases were cannulated. Three (n = 3/25) cases had mild bleeding and two mild pancreatitis, one severe pancreatitis, and one perforation were recorded in the precut group. One patient each had severe and mild pancreatitis in the DGW group, while one had mild pancreatitis and two had moderate pancreatitis in the TP group. All the patients were managed conservatively. Conclusion There was no significant difference in the technical success rate (p = 0.075) as well as complications (p = 0.117) between the three salvage methods for difficult naive CBD cannulations.

Removal of obstructed pancreatic stent tube and biliary stones in patient with Roux-en-Y anatomy under direct endoscopic view.

Removal of obstructed pancreatic stent tube and biliary stones in patient with Roux-en-Y anatomy under direct endoscopic view.

Development and validation of a machine learning–based, point-of-care risk calculator for post-ERCP pancreatitis and prophylaxis selection

A robust model of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk is not currently available. We aimed to develop a machine learning-based tool for PEP risk prediction to aid in clinical decision making related to periprocedural prophylaxis selection and postprocedural monitoring. Feature selection, model training, and validation were performed using patient-level data from 12 randomized controlled trials. A gradient-boosted machine (GBM) model was trained to estimate PEP risk, and the performance of the resulting model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) with 5-fold cross-validation. A web-based clinical decision-making tool was created, and a prospective pilot study was performed using data from ERCPs performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital over a 1-month period. A total of 7389 patients were included in the GBM with an 8.6% rate of PEP. The model was trained on 20 PEP risk factors and 5 prophylactic interventions (rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], aggressive hydration, combined rectal NSAIDs and aggressive hydration, pancreatic duct stenting, and combined rectal NSAIDs and pancreatic duct stenting). The resulting GBM model had an AUC of 0.70 (65% specificity, 65% sensitivity, 95% negative predictive value, and 15% positive predictive value). A total of 135 patients were included in the prospective pilot study, resulting in an AUC of 0.74. This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a novel machine learning-based PEP risk estimation tool with high negative predictive value to aid in prophylaxis selection and identify patients at low risk who may not require extended postprocedure monitoring.

Treatment and Prognosis for Pancreatic Duct Disruption Associated With Pancreatic Cancer: A Case Series of 15 Patients.

Background Pancreatic duct (PD) disruption can occasionally be attributed to pancreatic cancer. Therapeutic interventions for PD disruption due to pancreatic cancer and their influence on pancreatic cancer prognosis remain unclear. This study investigated the therapeutic modalities and prognostic implications of PD disruption in pancreatic cancer. Methods This retrospective study included 15 patients with PD disruption concomitant with pancreatic cancer between April 2011 and March 2023. As an endoscopic intervention for PD disruption, endoscopic pancreatic stenting (EPS) or endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage (EUS-PFD) was performed. Technical success was defined as stent placement and clinical success was defined as an improvement in PD disruption. Results Of the 15 cases of PD disruption, two involved only pancreatic juice leakage without symptoms, four involved pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC) without infection, and nine involved PPC with infection. Four patients underwent EPS, nine underwent EUS-PFD, and two underwent lumen-apposing metal stent placement. All patients achieved both technical and clinical success without complications. The clinical stage of pancreatic cancer ranged from carcinoma in situ to the metastatic phase. For the treatment of pancreatic cancer, five patients underwent surgical resection, and eight underwent chemotherapy. There was no obvious recurrence of peritoneal sowing. The median overall survival from the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in the resected and non-resected cases was 74 and 9.6 months, respectively. Conclusion Endoscopic intervention was effective in all cases of PD disruption due to pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, even in cases of pancreatic cancer after PD disruption, survival rates were similar to those in cases without PD disruption and were achieved through surgical resection or chemotherapy.

Prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of post-ampullectomy pancreatitis: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 1858 patients.

The effectiveness of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting (PPDS) in preventing post-ampullectomy pancreatitis (PAP) at the time of endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has been reported, however, results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at the use of PPDS in reducing PAP as well as overall post-ampullectomy complications. Multiple databases were searched through May 2023 for studies reporting on EA. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of PAP, with and without PPDS. Pooled rates of adverse events including perforation, delayed bleeding, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were assessed. Random effects model was used for our meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. Thirty-four studies (14 case series, 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) with 1868 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of PAP was 12.3% (CI 10.3-14.5). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of PAP among patients with PPDS, 11.9% (CI 8.9-15.7) and without PPDS, 16.6% (CI 13.4-20.4), RR 0.8 (CI 0.51-1.28), p = 0.4. In terms of severe PAP, we found no difference between the two groups. The overall pooled rates of successful en-bloc and piecemeal resection were 74.8% (CI 67.3-81.1) and 25.1% (CI 19-32.4). Additionally, pooled rates of ampullary stenosis, post procedural bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were 3.6%, 11.1%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 1.3%, respectively. Our analysis shows that PPDS at the time of EA does not offer a significant protective effect against PAP. While the incidence of PAP was higher among the no PPDS group, it is plausible that this is more likely due to variation among studies in terms of lesion size, length/size of pancreatic stent used and etiology of ampullary lesions. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

Indomethacin Does Not Reduce Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Pancreatic Stenting.

Rectal indomethacin reduces pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its added benefits in patients already receiving prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of indomethacin in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatic stenting. A cohort study was conducted on all patients who underwent the rescue cannulation technique for challenging bile duct cannulation (selected high-risk patients). Patients were split into two groups based on the prophylaxis method for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP): one receiving a combination of indomethacin and pancreatic stenting, while the other received pancreatic stenting alone. Comparative analyses were carried out on PEP, hyperamylasemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative hospital stay among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients. Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 607 patients with native papillae were enrolled, with 140 grouped into the indomethacin plus stent group and 467 into the stent alone group. The overall PEP rate was 4.4% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.407), mild PEP (P = 0.340), moderate to severe PEP (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia (P = 0.543), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = 0.392), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.521). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using multivariable analysis also validated these findings. Indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in high-risk patients who routinely received prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Therefore, the additional administration of rectal indomethacin to further mitigate PEP appears to be not necessary.