Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2010
Therapeutic EUS-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after failed pancreatic duct cannulation at ERCP.
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.
Barkay Olga, Sherman Stuart, McHenry Lee, Yoo Byung Moo, Fogel Evan L, Watkins James L, DeWitt John, Al-Haddad Mohammad A, Lehman Glen A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cannulation of the pancreatic duct (PD) during endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) can fail even in experienced hands. A technique for therapeutic EUS-assisted rendezvous ERP has been described in a few case reports.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic EUS-assisted ERP.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center.
PATIENTS: This study involved 21 patients after failed ERP.
INTERVENTION: EUS-guided transgastric pancreatography by using a mixture of contrast media and methylene blue was attempted. If that was successful, ERP was attempted by using methylene blue flow as an indicator of the PD orifice or by a rendezvous technique using a wire passed into the PD and the small bowel through the EUS needle.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success rate and complications.
RESULTS: The PD was of a normal diameter in 7 patients and was dilated in 14 patients. EUS-guided pancreatography was successfully done in all patients with a dilated PD but only in 4 of 7 patients (57%) with normal-diameter PDs. In 6 patients, ERP was successfully performed by using methylene blue flow as an indicator of the PD orifice. The rendezvous technique was successful in 4 of 12 cases (33%), and reasons for failure were either a tight stricture (n = 5) or a suboptimal angle of EUS needle insertion (n = 3). Overall, EUS-assisted ERP was successful in 10 of 21 patients (48%). Complications included peripancreatic abscess in 1 patient and mild pancreatitis in 1 patient.
LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, small sample size.
CONCLUSION: EUS-assisted ERP is a complex procedure that can provide access to the PD in selected cases after failed standard ERP.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic EUS-assisted ERP.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center.
PATIENTS: This study involved 21 patients after failed ERP.
INTERVENTION: EUS-guided transgastric pancreatography by using a mixture of contrast media and methylene blue was attempted. If that was successful, ERP was attempted by using methylene blue flow as an indicator of the PD orifice or by a rendezvous technique using a wire passed into the PD and the small bowel through the EUS needle.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success rate and complications.
RESULTS: The PD was of a normal diameter in 7 patients and was dilated in 14 patients. EUS-guided pancreatography was successfully done in all patients with a dilated PD but only in 4 of 7 patients (57%) with normal-diameter PDs. In 6 patients, ERP was successfully performed by using methylene blue flow as an indicator of the PD orifice. The rendezvous technique was successful in 4 of 12 cases (33%), and reasons for failure were either a tight stricture (n = 5) or a suboptimal angle of EUS needle insertion (n = 3). Overall, EUS-assisted ERP was successful in 10 of 21 patients (48%). Complications included peripancreatic abscess in 1 patient and mild pancreatitis in 1 patient.
LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, small sample size.
CONCLUSION: EUS-assisted ERP is a complex procedure that can provide access to the PD in selected cases after failed standard ERP.