BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fistulas are managed primarily by conservative treatment. Surgery is performed in cases of conservative treatment failure. Endoscopic treatment is reported to be both effective and safe as an alternative treatment method. METHODS: A total of 26 patients underwent endoscopic treatment after failure of conservative treatment between January 2002 and November 2004. The mean time between the onset of fistula and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure was 95 days. The mean fistula output volume was 400 ml per day. Four patients had pancreatic ascites. The aim of the endoscopic treatment was to bypass the ductal disruption by placing stents or drains where the origin of fistulous tract could be identified, and to lower the pancreatic duct pressure by performing pancreatic sphincterotomy or by placing stents where the site of the leak could not be identified. RESULTS: Pancreatography could be performed in all the patients except one. Partial duct disruption occurred in 16 patients. All of the fistulas closed after the ductal disruption was bypassed. Pancreatic sphincterotomy or endoprothesis placement was effective for eight of the remaining nine patients in whom the ductal disruption originated from the tail of the pancreas and hence could not be bypassed. The overall success rate was 94% for the patients with partial duct disruption. Four patients had side branch leaks. All of them closed after placement of an endoprothesis. Fistulas closed in only one (20%) of the five patients with complete duct disruption. Pancreatic ascites resolved in two of the four patients after endoscopic treatment. No serious complications resulted from endoscopic treatment other than proximally migrated stents in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic treatment is an effective and safe method for patients with pancreatic fistulas unresponsive to conservative treatment. The success rate is very high, especially for patients with partial and side branch duct disruption.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic fistulas are managed primarily by conservative treatment. Surgery is performed in cases of conservative treatment failure. Endoscopic treatment is reported to be both effective and safe as an alternative treatment method. METHODS: A total of 26 patients underwent endoscopic treatment after failure of conservative treatment between January 2002 and November 2004. The mean time between the onset of fistula and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure was 95 days. The mean fistula output volume was 400 ml per day. Four patients had pancreatic ascites. The aim of the endoscopic treatment was to bypass the ductal disruption by placing stents or drains where the origin of fistulous tract could be identified, and to lower the pancreatic duct pressure by performing pancreatic sphincterotomy or by placing stents where the site of the leak could not be identified. RESULTS: Pancreatography could be performed in all the patients except one. Partial duct disruption occurred in 16 patients. All of the fistulas closed after the ductal disruption was bypassed. Pancreatic sphincterotomy or endoprothesis placement was effective for eight of the remaining nine patients in whom the ductal disruption originated from the tail of the pancreas and hence could not be bypassed. The overall success rate was 94% for the patients with partial duct disruption. Four patients had side branch leaks. All of them closed after placement of an endoprothesis. Fistulas closed in only one (20%) of the five patients with complete duct disruption. Pancreatic ascites resolved in two of the four patients after endoscopic treatment. No serious complications resulted from endoscopic treatment other than proximally migrated stents in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic treatment is an effective and safe method for patients with pancreatic fistulas unresponsive to conservative treatment. The success rate is very high, especially for patients with partial and side branch duct disruption.
Authors: R A Kozarek; T J Ball; D J Patterson; S L Raltz; L W Traverso; J A Ryan; R C Thirlby Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 1997 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.452