What is the best endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts?

Sequential therapy with combined trans-papillary endoscopic naso-pancreatic and endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage (ERPD) and stent implantation has become the major treatment method for pancreatic pseudocysts. However, it is associated with a high recurrence rate and infection.

AIM

To manage pancreatic pseudocysts by sequential therapy with endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage (ENPD) combined with ERPD and evaluate the treatment outcome.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-two cases of pancreatic pseudocyst confirmed by endoscopic examination at our hospital between January 2014 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 152 cases of intubation via the duodenal papilla, of which 92 involved pancreatic duct stent implantation and 60 involved sequential therapy with combined ENPD and ERPD (two-step procedure). The success rate of the procedure, incidence of complications (infection, bleeding, etc.), recurrence, and length and cost of hospitalization were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of infection was significantly higher in the ERPD group (12 cases) than in the two-step procedure group (2 cases). Twelve patients developed infection in the ERPD group, and anti-infection therapy was effective in five cases but not in the remaining seven cases. Infection presented as fever and chills in the two-step procedure group. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the ERPD group with seven cases compared with zero cases in the two-step procedure group (P < 0.05). Similarly, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in the ERPD group (19 cases) than in the two-step procedure group (0 cases).

CONCLUSION

Sequential therapy with combined ENPD and ERPD is safe and effective in patients with pancreatic pseudocysts.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: The impact of evolving experience and new technologies in diagnosis and treatment over the last two decades

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the preferred approach for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) due to the better experience and significant progress using newer stents and access devices during last decade. This study aimed to evaluate the role of the evolving experience and possible influence of new technological devices on the outcome of patients evaluated for PFCs and submitted to EUS-guided drainage during two different periods: the early period at the beginning of experience when a standardized technique was used and the late period when the increased experience of the operator, combined with different stents quality were introduced in the management of PFCs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of a cohort of 91 consecutive patients, who underwent EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic PFCs from October 2001 to September 2017. Demographic, therapeutic results, complications, and outcomes were compared between early years' group (2001-2008) and late years' group (2009-2017).

RESULTS

Endoscopic treatment was successfully achieved in 55.6% (20/36) of patients in the early years' group, and in 96.4% (53/55) in the late years' group. Eighteen patients (12 in early years' and 6 in the late year's group) required additional open surgery. Procedural complications were observed in 5 patients, 4 in early years' and 1 in late years' group. Mortality was registered in two patients (2.2%), one for each group.

CONCLUSIONS

During our long-term survey using EUS-guided endoscopic drainage of PFCs, significantly better outcomes in term of improved success rate and decrease complications rate were observed during the late period.

[Methods of internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts]

AIM

To present own experience of internal drainage and characteristics of its different variants which are applied in various countries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Endosonography-assisted internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts was performed in 25 patients. Plastic stents were implanted in one stage without change of instruments while metal stents - with change of instruments during manipulation.

RESULTS

Intervention was successful in 24 patients. In 1 case bleeding developed during cystostomy that required open surgery. Plastic and metal stents were used in 11 and 12 patients respectively. 1 patient had two pancreatic pseudocysts. Therefore 2 stents of both types were used in this case. Clinical success was achieved in 91% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Different variants of method resolve problem of surgical approach, stomy and choice of stent. However every technique is targeted to resolve separate problem while single method is not accepted. Further large comparative studies are necessary to define optimal technique of internal drainage.

[Therapy of pancreatic pseudocysts: endoscopy versus surgery]

Pancreatic pseudocysts are frequent complications following acute and chronic pancreatitis as well as abdominal trauma. They originate from enzymatic and/or necrotizing processes within the organ involving the surrounding tissues through inflammatory processes following pancreatic ductal lesion(s). Pseudocysts require definitive treatment if they become symptomatic, progressive, larger than 5 cm after a period of more than 6 weeks and/or have complications. Cystic neoplasms must be excluded before treatment. Endoscopic interventions are commonly accepted first line approaches. Should these fail or not be feasible surgical procedures have been well established and show comparable results. In summary, pancreatic pseudocysts require a reliable diagnostic approach with a multidisciplinary professional management involving gastroenterologists and surgeons.

Update on pathogenesis and clinical management of acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP), defined as the acute nonbacterial inflammatory condition of the pancreas, is derived from the early activation of digestive enzymes found inside the acinar cells, with variable compromise of the gland itself, nearby tissues and other organs. So, it is an event that begins with pancreatic injury, elicits an acute inflammatory response, encompasses a variety of complications and generally resolves over time. Different conditions are known to induce this disorder, although the innermost mechanisms and how they act to develop the disease are still unknown. We summarize some well established aspects. A phase sequence has been proposed: etiology factors generate other conditions inside acinar cells that favor the AP development with some systemic events; genetic factors could be involved as susceptibility and modifying elements. AP is a disease with extremely different clinical expressions. Most patients suffer a mild and limited disease, but about one fifth of cases develop multi organ failure, accompanied by high mortality. This great variability in presentation, clinical course and complications has given rise to the confusion related to AP related terminology. However, consensus meetings have provided uniform definitions, including the severity of the illness. The clinical management is mainly based on the disease´s severity and must be directed to correct the underlying predisposing factors and control the inflammatory process itself. The first step is to determine if it is mild or severe. We review the principal aspects to be considered in this treatment, as reflected in several clinical practice guidelines. For the last 25 years, there has been a global increase in incidence of AP, along with many advances in diagnosis and treatment. However, progress in knowledge of its pathogenesis is scarce.

Outcomes of endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of pancreatic fluid collections arising after pancreatic tail resection

BACKGROUND

Up to 15% to 30% of patients develop pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) after pancreatic tail resection. Percutaneous and endoscopic methods have been used to drain these collections, though few data are available that compare outcomes of these modalities.

STUDY DESIGN

From December 1998 to April 2011, we identified all patients who underwent pancreatic tail resection and developed PFCs requiring intervention. The primary aim was to compare overall success rates in resolution of PFCs using endoscopic and percutaneous modalities. Success rates, hospital length of stay, number of CT scans, sinograms and endoscopies performed, and days with drain(s) in place were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were identified. Percutaneous drainage was performed a median of 25 days postoperatively, compared with 85 days for endoscopic drainage (p < 0.001). Endoscopic and percutaneous methods had similar rates of technical success (100% vs 97%, p = 0.50) and treatment success (80% vs 81%, p = 0.92), respectively. Recurrence rates were 16.6% for the endoscopic group and 23% for the percutaneous group (p = 0.65), and adverse events occurred in 9.4% of those treated endoscopically vs 13.3% of those treated percutaneously (p = 0.68). Location and characteristics of PFCs did not influence success rates. Recurrences were often treated by "salvage" drainage via the other modality. Median hospital stay was longer after primary percutaneous drainage compared with primary endoscopic drainage (5.5 days vs 2 days, p = 0.046). Primary percutaneous drainage patients also had more CT scans (median 3 vs 2, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage appear to be equally effective and complementary interventions for PFCs occurring after pancreatic tail resection. Primary endoscopic drainage may be associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer CT scans.

Comparative evaluation of transpapillary drainage with nasopancreatic drain and stent in patients with large pseudocysts located near tail of pancreas

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic transpapillary drainage is usually not advocated for large pseudocysts for fear of infection. We compared efficacy of transpapillary drainage with nasopancreatic drain (NPD) or stent alone in large pseudocysts (>6 cm) located near tail of pancreas.

METHODS

In a prospective study, a 5-Fr stent/NPD was placed across/near pancreatic duct disruption in 11 patients (nine chronic and two acute pancreatitis) with large pseudocysts located near tail of pancreas. The patients were followed up for resolution of pseudocyst, need for surgery, and complications.

RESULTS

Pseudocysts diameter ranged from 7 to 15 cm. An attempt to place NPD was made in five patients and a stent in six patients. In NPD group, deep cannulation could not be achieved in one patient; it was treated successfully with percutaneous drainage. In four patients with partial duct disruption, NPD was successfully placed bridging disruption and all had resolution within 6 weeks. In stent group, five had partial and one had complete duct disruption, who later recovered by placement of a stent. Of five patients with partial disruption, one recovered uneventfully at 6 weeks with stent bridging disruption. Other four patients (bridging stent in three) developed febrile illness and infection of pseudocyst. They required additional percutaneous drainage and antibiotics. There was no recurrence of pseudocysts over follow-up of 16.4 months.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic transpapillary drainage with NPD bridging disruption is associated with good outcome in patients with large pseudocysts at tail end of pancreas. However, there was increased frequency of infection when stent was used for drainage.

Italian consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis

This paper gives practical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Statements have been elaborated by working teams of experts, by searching for and analysing the literature, and submitted to a consensus process by using a Delphi modified procedure. The statements report recommendations on clinical and nutritional approach, assessment of pancreatic function, treatment of exocrine pancreatic failure and of secondary diabetes, treatment of pain and prevention of painful relapses. Moreover, the role of endoscopy in approaching pancreatic pain, pancreatic stones, duct narrowing and dilation, and complications was considered. Recommendations for most appropriate use of various imaging techniques and of ultrasound endoscopy are reported. Finally, a group of recommendations are addressed to the surgical treatment, with definition of right indications, timing, most appropriate procedures and techniques in different clinical conditions and targets, and clinical and functional outcomes following surgery.

Endoscopic transmural drainage of pseudocysts associated with pancreatic resections or pancreatitis: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy has been regarded as an effective modality for draining pancreatic collections, pseudocysts, and abscesses. This study analyzes our experience with endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and compares the outcomes in patients with postsurgical and pancreatitis-associated ones.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst from January 1999 through June 2008 were included in this retrospective analysis. The specific indication for attempting the procedure was the presence of direct contact between the pseudocyst and the gastric wall. All the drainages were carried out via a transgastric approach, and one or two straight plastic stents (10 or 11.5 French) were positioned. A comparative analysis of short- and long-term results was made between patients with postoperative pseudocysts (group A) and patients with pancreatitis-associated pseudocysts (group B).

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were included in the study, 25 in group A and 30 in group B. Overall, a single stent was inserted in 84.0% of patients, while two stents were needed in the remaining 16.0%. The technical success rate was 78.2%, whereas procedure-related complications were 16.4%. Complications included pseudocyst superinfection and major bleeding and were managed mainly by surgery. Mortality rate was 1.8% (1 patient). There were no significant differences in the technical success rate and procedure-related complications between the two groups (p=0.532 and 0.159, respectively) Recurrences were 13.9% and significantly more common in group B (p=0.021). In such cases, a second endoscopic drainage was successfully performed.

CONCLUSION

Transmural endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts is feasible and has a technical success rate of 78.2%, without differences related to the pseudocyst etiology. Recurrences, on the other hand, are more common in patients with pancreatitis. Given the severe complications that may occur after the procedure, we recommend that endoscopic drainage be performed in a tertiary-care center with specific expertise in pancreatic surgery.

A simple, safe technique for the drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND

A number of methods are available for the drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts, including percutaneous, endoscopic and open approaches. In Leicester, we developed a combined radiological and endoscopic technique (predating the use of endoscopic/ultrasound) to allow drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts into the stomach. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of this approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing combined endoscopic/ultrasound-guided percutaneous stenting between 1994 and 2007. Data were extracted from case records and our computerised radiology database.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven combined endoscopic/ultrasound-guided procedures were undertaken. Median patient age was 52 years (range 26-84 years). Nineteen pseudocysts were secondary to acute pancreatitis and 18 were in patients with chronic pancreatitis. The diameter of pseudocysts on pre-procedure imaging ranged from 4 to 21 cm (median 11 cm). Median duration of hospital stay was 7 days (range 1-44 days) and 30-day mortality was 0%. Stents were inserted in 70.3% of patients (n= 26). Of those patients stented during the combined procedure, three developed infection of the pseudocyst, necessitating open cystgastrostomy within the first month. During a mean follow-up period of 41 months, two patients developed recurrent pseudocysts which were successfully drained with a further combined procedure (16 and 43 months). Repeat imaging in the remainder of patients failed to show any evidence of a persistent or recurrent pseudocyst beyond 2 months.

CONCLUSION

Combined radiological and endoscopic drainage is safe, cost-effective and highly efficient in preventing recurrent pseudocyst formation.

Pancreatic pseudocyst drainage guided by endoscopic ultrasound

Pancreatic pseudocysts can be managed conservatively in the majority of patients but some of them will require surgical, endoscopic or percutaneous drainage. Endoscopic drainage represents an efficient modality of drainage with a high resolution rate and lower morbidity and mortality than the surgical or percutaneous approach. In this article we review the endoscopic pseudocyst drainage procedure with special emphasis on technical details.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts at atypical locations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is paucity of data on endoscopic management of pseudocysts at atypical locations. We evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary nasopancreatic drain (NPD) placement in the management of pseudocysts of pancreas at atypical locations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eleven patients with pseudocysts at atypical locations were treated with attempted endoscopic transpapillary nasopancreatic drainage. On endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP), a 5-F NPD was placed across/near the site of duct disruption.

RESULTS

Three patients each had mediastinal, intrahepatic, and intra/perisplenic pseudocysts and one patient each had renal and pelvic pseudocyst. Nine patients had chronic pancreatitis whereas two patients had acute pancreatitis. The size of the pseudocysts ranged from 2 to 15 cm. On ERP, the site of ductal disruption was in the body of pancreas in five patients (45.4%), and tail of pancreas in six patients (54.6%). All the patients had partial disruption of pancreatic duct. The NPD was successfully placed across the disruption in 10 of the 11 patients (90.9%) and pseudocysts resolved in 4-8 weeks. One of the patients developed fever, 5 days after the procedure, which was successfully treated by intravenous antibiotics. In another patient, NPD became blocked 12 days after the procedure and was successfully opened by aspiration. The NPD slipped out in one of the patient with splenic pseudocyst and was replaced with a stent. There was no recurrence of symptoms or pseudocysts during follow-up of 3-70 months.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic pseudocysts at atypical locations with ductal communication and partial ductal disruption that is bridged by NPD can also be effectively treated with endoscopic transpapillary NPD placement.

Pancreatic pseudocysts: observation, endoscopic drainage, or resection?

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic pseudocysts are a common complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis. They are diagnosed with imaging studies and can be treated successfully with a variety of methods: endoscopic transpapillary or transmural drainage, percutaneous catheter drainage, laparoscopic surgery, or open pseudocystoenterostomy.

METHODS

Relevant publications that appeared from 1975 to 2008 were retrieved from the MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases for this review.

RESULTS

Endoscopic pseudocyst drainage has a high success rate (79.2%) and a low complication rate (12.9%). Percutaneous drainage is mainly used for the emergency treatment of infected pancreatic pseudocysts. Open internal drainage and pseudocyst resection are surgical techniques with high success rates (>92%), but also higher morbidity (16%) and mortality (2.5%) than endoscopic treatment (mortality 0.7%). Laparoscopic pseudocystoenterostomy, a recently introduced procedure, is probably similar to the endoscopic techniques with regard to morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

An interdisciplinary approach is best suited for the safe and effective stage-specific treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. The different interventional techniques that are currently available have yet to be compared directly in randomized trials.

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts

Pancreatic pseudocysts arise as a complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic trauma, or after surgery. Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts can be achieved using transpapillary and/or transmural (transgastric or transduodenal) approaches with acceptable success rates, complication rates, and recurrence rates. Advantages of endoscopic drainage is the avoidance of external pancreatic fistula.

Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis

Treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been exclusively surgical for a long time. Recently, endoscopic therapy has become widely used as a primary therapeutic option. Initially performed for drainage of pancreatic cysts and pseudocysts, endoscopic treatments were adapted to biliary and pancreatic ducts stenosis. Pancreatic sphincterotomy which allows access to pancreatic ducts was firstly reported. Secondly, endoscopic methods of stenting, dilatation, and stones extraction of the bile ducts were applied to pancreatic ducts. Nevertheless, new improvements were necessary: failures of pancreatic stone extraction justified the development of extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy; dilatation of pancreatic stenosis was improved by forage with a new device; moreover endosonography allowed guidance for celiac block, gastro-cystostomy, duodeno-cystostomy and pancreatico-gastrostomy. Although endoscopic treatments are more and more frequently accepted, indications are still debated.