Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2017
Percutaneous Image-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: Technique, Results and Expected Benefits.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mizandari M, Azrumelashvili T, Kumar J, Habib N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to provide a technical detail and feasibility of percutaneous image-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and to discuss its subtleties in a series of patients with obstructed PD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients presenting with PD obstruction from pancreatic head tumour or pancreatitis were subjected to percutaneous image-guided PD drainage under a guidance of ultrasound or computed tomography. Following the successful puncture of PD, a locking loop drainage catheter was placed using conventional guidewire techniques under real-time fluoroscopy guidance.
RESULTS: The percutaneous drainage of obstructed PD was completed in 29 (96.7%) patients as an independent therapeutic intent or as a bridge to further percutaneous procedures. Clinical improvement following drainage was documented by the gradual reduction in clinical symptoms, including pain, nausea and fever and improved blood test results, showing the significant decrease of amylase concentration. The amount of pancreatic fluid drained post procedure was between 300 and 900 mL/day. No major procedure-related complications were observed. Subsequently, 14 of 29 patients underwent further procedures, including endoluminal placement of metal stent with or without radiofrequency ablation, balloon assisted percutaneous descending litholapaxy (BAPDL), endoluminal biopsy and balloon dilatation using the same drainage tract.
CONCLUSION: The percutaneous PD drainage appears to be a safe and effective procedure. It should be considered in patients with obstructed PD secondary to malignancy, pancreatitis etc., where endoscopic retrograde cannulation has been failed or impracticable. The procedure can also be contemplated either as an independent treatment option or as an initial step for the subsequent therapeutic endoluminal procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients presenting with PD obstruction from pancreatic head tumour or pancreatitis were subjected to percutaneous image-guided PD drainage under a guidance of ultrasound or computed tomography. Following the successful puncture of PD, a locking loop drainage catheter was placed using conventional guidewire techniques under real-time fluoroscopy guidance.
RESULTS: The percutaneous drainage of obstructed PD was completed in 29 (96.7%) patients as an independent therapeutic intent or as a bridge to further percutaneous procedures. Clinical improvement following drainage was documented by the gradual reduction in clinical symptoms, including pain, nausea and fever and improved blood test results, showing the significant decrease of amylase concentration. The amount of pancreatic fluid drained post procedure was between 300 and 900 mL/day. No major procedure-related complications were observed. Subsequently, 14 of 29 patients underwent further procedures, including endoluminal placement of metal stent with or without radiofrequency ablation, balloon assisted percutaneous descending litholapaxy (BAPDL), endoluminal biopsy and balloon dilatation using the same drainage tract.
CONCLUSION: The percutaneous PD drainage appears to be a safe and effective procedure. It should be considered in patients with obstructed PD secondary to malignancy, pancreatitis etc., where endoscopic retrograde cannulation has been failed or impracticable. The procedure can also be contemplated either as an independent treatment option or as an initial step for the subsequent therapeutic endoluminal procedures.