Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2007
EUS-guided pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatobulbostomy for the treatment of pain in patients with pancreatic ductal dilatation inaccessible for transpapillary endoscopic therapy.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Tessier Geneviève, Bories Erwan, Arvanitakis Marianna, Hittelet Axel, Pesenti Christian, Le Moine Olivier, Giovannini Marc, Devière Jacques
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: EUS-guided pancreatogastrostomy (EPG) is described as an alternative to surgery for ductal decompression in symptomatic patients when endoscopic transpapillary access of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) is impossible.
OBJECTIVE: To present the midterm clinical response and follow-up of a larger group of patients treated with EPG and a new transbulbar approach, EUS-guided pancreatobulbostomy (EPB).
DESIGN: Retrospective case review.
SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers in Brussels and Marseille.
PATIENTS: From 2000 to 2004, 36 patients (51 years old; range, 14-71 years) were seen.
INTERVENTION: EPG or EPB.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pain relief, technical aspects, complications, and clinical follow-up.
RESULTS: Indications were chronic pancreatitis, with complete obstruction (secondary to a tight stenosis, a stone, or MPD rupture); inaccessible papilla or impossible cannulation (n = 20); anastomotic stenosis after a Whipple procedure (n = 12); complete MPD rupture after acute pancreatitis (AP); or trauma (n = 4). EPG or EPB was unsuccessful in 3 patients; 1 was lost to follow-up. Major complications occurred in 2 patients and included 1 hematoma and 1 severe AP. The median follow-up was 14.5 months (range, 4-55 months). Pain relief was complete or partial in 25 patients (69%, intention to treat). Eight patients treated had no improvement of their symptoms (4 were subsequently diagnosed with cancer). Stent dysfunction occurred in 20 patients (55%) and required a total of 29 repeat endoscopies.
LIMITATIONS: Technically demanding and requires careful pretherapeutic evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: EPG or EPB appears to be an effective and relatively safe treatment for the management of pain secondary to pancreatic ductal hypertension in patients with an MPD not accessible by a transpapillary route.
OBJECTIVE: To present the midterm clinical response and follow-up of a larger group of patients treated with EPG and a new transbulbar approach, EUS-guided pancreatobulbostomy (EPB).
DESIGN: Retrospective case review.
SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers in Brussels and Marseille.
PATIENTS: From 2000 to 2004, 36 patients (51 years old; range, 14-71 years) were seen.
INTERVENTION: EPG or EPB.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pain relief, technical aspects, complications, and clinical follow-up.
RESULTS: Indications were chronic pancreatitis, with complete obstruction (secondary to a tight stenosis, a stone, or MPD rupture); inaccessible papilla or impossible cannulation (n = 20); anastomotic stenosis after a Whipple procedure (n = 12); complete MPD rupture after acute pancreatitis (AP); or trauma (n = 4). EPG or EPB was unsuccessful in 3 patients; 1 was lost to follow-up. Major complications occurred in 2 patients and included 1 hematoma and 1 severe AP. The median follow-up was 14.5 months (range, 4-55 months). Pain relief was complete or partial in 25 patients (69%, intention to treat). Eight patients treated had no improvement of their symptoms (4 were subsequently diagnosed with cancer). Stent dysfunction occurred in 20 patients (55%) and required a total of 29 repeat endoscopies.
LIMITATIONS: Technically demanding and requires careful pretherapeutic evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: EPG or EPB appears to be an effective and relatively safe treatment for the management of pain secondary to pancreatic ductal hypertension in patients with an MPD not accessible by a transpapillary route.