BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts using transpapillary and transmural approaches has been reported. In this study, endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage (ENPD) and pancreatic stenting were performed in patients with pseudocyst and abscess associated with acute pancreatitis, and the usefulness and problems of the procedures were investigated. METHODS: After endoscopic retrograde pancreatography was done, ENPD and/or pancreatic stenting were performed in 13 patients with pancreatitis and pseudocyst or abscess that communicated with the main pancreatic duct. RESULTS: ENPD was performed in seven patients, and was effective in all five patients with cysts: the cysts disappeared or shrank. However, the condition in the two patients with abscess was unchanged, and percutaneous drainage was performed. Stenting was carried out in six patients, and the cyst disappeared or pancreatitis was improved in all six. The stent was removed from two patients, but no recurrence has been noted so far. CONCLUSIONS: ENPD and stenting are effective therapeutic choices for acute and chronic pancreatitis and pseudocysts, and they are superior to percutaneous drainage to avoid pancreatic fistula, but they may not be effective for pancreatic abscess. Selection of therapeutic methods corresponding to individual cases is important.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts using transpapillary and transmural approaches has been reported. In this study, endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage (ENPD) and pancreatic stenting were performed in patients with pseudocyst and abscess associated with acute pancreatitis, and the usefulness and problems of the procedures were investigated. METHODS: After endoscopic retrograde pancreatography was done, ENPD and/or pancreatic stenting were performed in 13 patients with pancreatitis and pseudocyst or abscess that communicated with the main pancreatic duct. RESULTS: ENPD was performed in seven patients, and was effective in all five patients with cysts: the cysts disappeared or shrank. However, the condition in the two patients with abscess was unchanged, and percutaneous drainage was performed. Stenting was carried out in six patients, and the cyst disappeared or pancreatitis was improved in all six. The stent was removed from two patients, but no recurrence has been noted so far. CONCLUSIONS: ENPD and stenting are effective therapeutic choices for acute and chronic pancreatitis and pseudocysts, and they are superior to percutaneous drainage to avoid pancreatic fistula, but they may not be effective for pancreatic abscess. Selection of therapeutic methods corresponding to individual cases is important.