Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico · 2005
[Transpapillary and transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Güitrón-Cantú Alfredo, Adalid-Martínez Raúl, Gutiérrez-Bermúdez José A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts via cystoenterostomy or transpapillary stenting has been recognized as a successful treatment options in carefully selected patients. Transpapillary stenting is an option in patients with pancreatic pseudocysts directly communicating with the main duct.
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and usefulness of transpapillary pancreatic endoprosthesis and transmural drainage in the treatment of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: After preliminary endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP) in 22 patients, transpapillary drainage was attempted in 8 patients with pseudocysts that communicated with the main pancreatic duct, transmural drainage of pseudocysts in contact with the stomach or duodenal wall was attempted in 12 patients and 2 patients were selected for combined transpapillary and transmural drainage.
RESULTS: Endoscopic drainage was technically successful in 18 patients (81.8%) of whom 16 had complete pseudocyst resolution. Complications occurred in 9% and included bleeding (n = 1) after transmural drainage, and pancreatitis (n = 1) after transpapillary drainage. Mean follow-up was 12 months (range, 2 to 21); pseudocysts recurred in 2 patients (11%), whom required surgical intervention. No mortality was observed.
CONCLUSION: Both transpapillary and transmural pseudocysts drainage are highly effective in patients with pseudocysts demonstrating suitable anatomy for these endoscopic techniques.
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and usefulness of transpapillary pancreatic endoprosthesis and transmural drainage in the treatment of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: After preliminary endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP) in 22 patients, transpapillary drainage was attempted in 8 patients with pseudocysts that communicated with the main pancreatic duct, transmural drainage of pseudocysts in contact with the stomach or duodenal wall was attempted in 12 patients and 2 patients were selected for combined transpapillary and transmural drainage.
RESULTS: Endoscopic drainage was technically successful in 18 patients (81.8%) of whom 16 had complete pseudocyst resolution. Complications occurred in 9% and included bleeding (n = 1) after transmural drainage, and pancreatitis (n = 1) after transpapillary drainage. Mean follow-up was 12 months (range, 2 to 21); pseudocysts recurred in 2 patients (11%), whom required surgical intervention. No mortality was observed.
CONCLUSION: Both transpapillary and transmural pseudocysts drainage are highly effective in patients with pseudocysts demonstrating suitable anatomy for these endoscopic techniques.