Percutaneous drainage and management of fluid collections associated with necrotic or cystic tumors in the abdomen and pelvis

Dispelling the Myths of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage of Infected Abdominal Collections

When consulted for percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of abdominopelvic collections, interventional radiologists (IRs) should consider the appropriateness of this technique in the context of other options such as conservative, endoscopic, or surgical management. Whenever possible, published data should be considered prior to performing percutaneous drainage, especially as regards controversial scenarios such as the use of fibrinolytic therapy, the primary placement of large-bore drainage catheters, the drainage of cystic tumors, the drainage of splenic abscesses, and the treatment of collections lacking an in-line drainage window. This article examines past and present published data on PCD to dispel some common myths and guide IRs toward the best applications of PCD.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pelvic abscess drainage for pelvic abscesses: A case series study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

This is a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) in a single hospital setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The referral criteria for EUS-PAD included patients with a pelvic abscess (PA) that was amenable for the procedure. A total of 14 patients with PA treated with EUS-PAD were included in this study. The mean patient age was 57.4 years, and male-to-female ratio was 7:7. Overall, there were six cases of appendiceal perforation, five of rectal cancer and one case each of the diverticular perforation, perianal abscess, and walled-off necrosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 100% of procedures were successful. Clinical success was achieved in 11 patients and they were discharged after EUS-PAD within 21.4 days on an average and the average duration of stent placement before removal was 27.0 days. Of all, six patients achieved complete improvement status where the cause was appendiceal perforation while two and one of the patients were recovered where the causes were post-curative operation for carcinoma and walled-off necrosis, respectively. Eight out of eleven patients who exhibited appendiceal perforation or underwent radical rectal cancer surgery were discharged after an average of 9.4 days post EUS-PAD. Although two patients showed temporary improvement, with perianal abscess and controlled rectal carcinoma, the PA worsened as the primary disease intensified. The PA drainage was ineffective in three patients where two of them had uncontrolled rectal cancer and one had diverticular perforation.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, the EUS-PAD is not only a reliable, safe, and efficient alternative to surgical and percutaneous drainage but also a valuable procedure with a high success rate for patients with acute infections, such as those who have had an appendiceal perforation or curative surgery. Poor indications and contraindications for EUS-PAD include uncontrolled gastrointestinal perforation and direct tumor invasion.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pelvic abscess drainage: a report of 2 cases and literature review

BACKGROUND

Drainage is essential for source control of the infection in a pelvic abscess. The purpose of this study was to report 2 cases of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of the pelvic abscess and review the literature of different modalities of EUS-guided drainage of pelvic abscess.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 60-year-old male developed a pelvic abscess 1 month after laparoscopic complete tumor resection. An abdominal CT showed a mass shadow (about 7.1 cm × 5.1 cm) in the right pelvic region. Another case was an 85-year-old male who developed a pelvic abscess 3 days after recurrent tumor resection of multiple organs. The CT showed pelvic effusion and gas accumulation (approximately 6.5 cm × 4.2 cm), and the intestinal tube above the small intestinal anastomosis was dilated with effusion. A 19G-A puncture needle was used to puncture the abscess. An 8-mm cylindrical balloon was inserted, followed by a 10 Fr-3 cm double pigtail stent and an 8.5 Fr drainage tube. After EUS-guided drainage of pelvic abscess, the symptoms disappeared without recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided drainage is an effective and safe method for treating pelvic abscesses as long as the drainage modality is appropriately selected based on the etiology, size, and mucus viscosity of the abscess.

Transrectal and transvaginal catheter drainages and aspirations for management of pelvic fluid collections: technique, technical success rates, and outcomes in 150 patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of image-guided transrectal/transvaginal (TR/TV) drainage for symptomatic pelvic fluid collections (SPFCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-center retrospective study of 150 consecutive patients (36 males, 114 females, average age 41 years) who underwent attempted TR/TV drainages of SPFCs during an 11-year, 5-month period. All patients presented with pain and had SPFCs with rectal or vaginal contact on preceding diagnostic CT. Routine technique included Foley catheter insertion, image-guidance with ultrasound and fluoroscopy, 18 g/20 cm Chiba needles, and Seldinger technique for catheter insertion. No anoscope or speculum was used. SPFCs causes were classified by etiology including postoperative-70 (47%); gynecologic-49 (33%); and gastrointestinal-31 (21%). Resolutions of the SPFCs without the need for surgical intervention, collection recurrence, and complications were assessed. Surgical management after attempted TR/TV drainage was considered a failure.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 172/180 procedures [TR 128/134 (95%); TV 44/46 (96%)]. TR/TV drainage successfully managed SPFCs in 141/150 patients (94% success rate) and 145/150 patients (97%) did not require surgical intervention; 4 patients with failed TR/TV drainage attempts were managed conservatively. In 5 patients requiring surgery, 4 were after technically successful TR/TV and 1 was after a failed TR attempt. Complications occurred in 4 (3%) patients: 2 bladder punctures (both resolved with medical management), 1 propagation of sepsis, and 1 hemorrhagic return from TR drainage that prompted surgical exploration.

CONCLUSION

Transrectal and transvaginal drainage had high technical success rates and were successful in managing the majority (141/150; 94%) of patients with pelvic fluid collections.