Single balloon enteroscopy-guided endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the treatment of a symptomatic pancreatic pseudocyst complicated by pancreaticojejunostomy stricture: A case report

RATIONALE

Endoscopic treatment of a pancreatic pseudocyst complicated by pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) stricture is challenging.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 76-year-old woman presented with worsening abdominal pain and dyspepsia. She had been receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine and cisplatin) for 4 months after pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) for the treatment of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

DIAGNOSES

Laboratory findings included elevated serum amylase (145 U/L) and lipase (437 U/L) levels. Abdominal computed tomography (CT) showed a pancreatic pseudocyst of approximately 3 cm in size and pancreatic duct dilatation in the remnant pancreas. According to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, cholangiocarcinoma is a stable disease.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Endoscopic drainage of the pancreatic pseudocyst was planned. Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE)-guided endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) with endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) using a mini probe demonstrated a membranous PJ stricture and a pancreatic pseudocyst. Endoscopic pseudocyst drainage using a 7-Fr plastic stent was successfully performed after needle-knife incision of the PJ stricture. Follow-up abdominal CT after 3 weeks showed complete resolution of the pseudocyst. Chemotherapy was resumed.

LESSONS

SBE-guided ERP with EUS using a mini probe may be an effective and safe treatment in a patient with a pancreatic pseudocyst complicated by membranous PJ stricture after PPPD.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using 4-Fr pancreatic plastic stents placed with common-type guidewires: Results from a prospective multinational registry

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatic plastic stents (PPS) can reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Prospective multicenter documentation of PEP rate after PPS placement is scarce. A new 4-Fr stent designed to be deployed over a 0.035-inch guidewire was used to assess the effectiveness of PEP prophylaxis.

METHODS

High-PEP-risk patients received a 4-Fr PPS for primary or secondary prophylaxis at seven centers in four countries. Patients were followed until spontaneous PPS migration, endoscopic stent removal, or for 4 months, whichever came first. Main outcome was PEP rate.

RESULTS

One hundred six (106) patients received PPS for PEP prophylaxis [61 (58%) primary, 45 (42%) secondary prophylaxis]. Median age was 54 years. Eighty-one (76%) PPS were placed using a 0.035-inch guidewire. By investigator choice 99 (93%) stents were single pigtail. Median stent length was 8 cm (range 3-12 cm). Technical success achieved in 100% of cases. Two patients in the primary prophylaxis group (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) experienced mild/moderate PEP. Seventy-eight PPS available for analysis underwent spontaneous migration after a median of 29 days. There were no reports of stent-induced ductal trauma. Post-hoc analysis of migration rate by PPS length showed no statistically significant trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk patients in the primary prophylaxis group, observed rates of PEP are low (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) with the use of prophylactic 4-Fr pancreatic duct stents compatible with a 0.035-inch guidewire. This low rate is not unequivocally due to the prophylactic stent.

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance pancreatography with gadoteridol by heavily T2-weighted three-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery: preliminary results in healthy subjects

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) pancreatography with intravenously administered gadolinium-based contrast material (GBCM) in healthy subjects. Eight healthy male subjects (age: 29-53 years old, median: 37 years old) were enrolled. Contrast-enhanced MR pancreatography was scanned with heavily T2-weighted three-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (hT2W-3D-FLAIR) before and after intravenous GBCM administration. Two radiologists evaluated the images, referring to three-dimensional MR pancreatography by consensus. Scanning was performed five times at 1.5-h intervals (at 0.5, 2, 3.5, 5, and 6.5 h) after GBCM administration. In all subjects, pre-contrast-enhanced hT2W-3D-FLAIR images demonstrated no visualization of the main pancreatic duct. After GBCM administration, the main pancreatic duct was visualized in all subjects at 0.5 h (n=4, 50%) and/or 2 h (n=7, 88%). The mean signal intensity of the main pancreatic duct was 3.17 ± 0.78 at pre-contrast enhancement, 7.96 ± 4.60 at 0.5 h, and 8.08 ± 4.64 at 2 h. The signal intensity ratio of the main pancreatic duct against the pancreatic parenchyma was statistically higher (P < 0.01) at the 0.5-h and 2-h scans than that of pre-contrast-enhanced scan. Intravenously administered GBCM seeped into the pancreatic duct in sufficient concentration to alter the appearance of the main pancreatic duct by hT2W-3D-FLAIR in healthy subjects.