Surgical endoscopy · 2024
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus surgical pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: a pilot comparative study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Jia-Su, Zheng Kai-Lian, Lv Shun-Li, Su Xiao-Ju, Wang Kai-Xuan, Li Zhao-Shen, Chen Jie, Chen Yan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage (EUS-PDD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative method to surgical drainage to achieve PD decompression after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). However, no directly study has compared EUS-PDD with surgical PD drainage after failed ERP in patients with chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy after failed ERP were retrospectively identified from our endoscopy and medical information systems. The primary end point was the Izbicki pain score. The secondary end points were pain relief at the end of follow-up, procedure outcomes, adverse events, readmission, and reintervention.
RESULTS: A total of 21 patients (11 EUS-PDD, 10 surgical drainages) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in mean Izbicki pain score (EUS-PDD, 13.6 ± 10.1 vs. surgical drainage 10.7 ± 7.9, p = 0.483) or complete/partial pain relief (60%/30% vs. 70%/30%, p = 0.752) at the end of follow-up of the two groups. The rates of overall adverse events (27.3% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.893) and readmission (63.6% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.290) were similar in the two treatment groups, while patients in EUS-PDD group required more reinterventions (45.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) compared with patients in the surgery group.
CONCLUSION: EUS-PDD showed comparable pain relief and safety to surgical PD drainage after failed ERP, with a higher rate of reintervention. The selection of EUS-PDD or surgical drainage may be appropriate based on an individualized strategy.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy after failed ERP were retrospectively identified from our endoscopy and medical information systems. The primary end point was the Izbicki pain score. The secondary end points were pain relief at the end of follow-up, procedure outcomes, adverse events, readmission, and reintervention.
RESULTS: A total of 21 patients (11 EUS-PDD, 10 surgical drainages) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in mean Izbicki pain score (EUS-PDD, 13.6 ± 10.1 vs. surgical drainage 10.7 ± 7.9, p = 0.483) or complete/partial pain relief (60%/30% vs. 70%/30%, p = 0.752) at the end of follow-up of the two groups. The rates of overall adverse events (27.3% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.893) and readmission (63.6% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.290) were similar in the two treatment groups, while patients in EUS-PDD group required more reinterventions (45.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) compared with patients in the surgery group.
CONCLUSION: EUS-PDD showed comparable pain relief and safety to surgical PD drainage after failed ERP, with a higher rate of reintervention. The selection of EUS-PDD or surgical drainage may be appropriate based on an individualized strategy.