Surgical endoscopy · 2011
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for pancreatic fistula or pancreatic duct dilation after pancreatic surgery.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Onodera Manabu, Kawakami Hiroshi, Kuwatani Masaki, Kudo Taiki, Haba Shin, Abe Yoko, Kawahata Shuhei, Eto Kazunori, Nasu Yuya, Tanaka Eiichi, Hirano Satoshi, Asaka Masahiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is widely used to manage pancreatic pseudocysts. Several studies have reported the use of EUS-guided drainage for pancreatic fistula and stasis of pancreatic juice caused by stricture of the pancreatic duct after pancreatic resection.
METHODS: At the authors' hospital, 262 patients underwent surgery involving pancreatic resection from April 2005 to March 2010. In 90 of these patients (34%), a grade B or C postoperative pancreatic fistula developed that required additional treatment. The authors performed EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) for six patients (2.1%) with a pancreatic fistula or dilation of the main pancreatic duct visible by EUS. Percutaneous drainage was provided for 18 patients (6.8%). The success rates for EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage were compared in a retrospective analysis.
RESULTS: In all six cases, EUS-TD was performed successfully without complications. Five of the six patients were successfully treated with only one trial of EUS-TD. The final technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage. Both the short- and long-term clinical success rates for EUS-TD were 100% and those for percutaneous drainage were 61.1 and 83%, respectively. The differences in these rates were not significant (short-term success, P = 0.091 vs. long-term success, P = 0.403). However, the time to clinical success was significantly shorter with EUS-TD (5.8 days) than with percutaneous drainage (30.4 days; P = 0.0013) in the current series.
CONCLUSIONS: The EUS-TD approach appears to be a safe and technically feasible alternative to percutaneous drainage and may be considered as first-line therapy for pancreatic fistulas visible by EUS.
METHODS: At the authors' hospital, 262 patients underwent surgery involving pancreatic resection from April 2005 to March 2010. In 90 of these patients (34%), a grade B or C postoperative pancreatic fistula developed that required additional treatment. The authors performed EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) for six patients (2.1%) with a pancreatic fistula or dilation of the main pancreatic duct visible by EUS. Percutaneous drainage was provided for 18 patients (6.8%). The success rates for EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage were compared in a retrospective analysis.
RESULTS: In all six cases, EUS-TD was performed successfully without complications. Five of the six patients were successfully treated with only one trial of EUS-TD. The final technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage. Both the short- and long-term clinical success rates for EUS-TD were 100% and those for percutaneous drainage were 61.1 and 83%, respectively. The differences in these rates were not significant (short-term success, P = 0.091 vs. long-term success, P = 0.403). However, the time to clinical success was significantly shorter with EUS-TD (5.8 days) than with percutaneous drainage (30.4 days; P = 0.0013) in the current series.
CONCLUSIONS: The EUS-TD approach appears to be a safe and technically feasible alternative to percutaneous drainage and may be considered as first-line therapy for pancreatic fistulas visible by EUS.