Literature DB >> 23732774

Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial.

Shyam Varadarajulu1, Ji Young Bang, Bryce S Sutton, Jessica M Trevino, John D Christein, C Mel Wilcox.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although surgery is the standard technique for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts, use of endoscopic methods is increasing. We performed a single-center, open-label, randomized trial to compare endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage.
METHODS: Patients with pancreatic pseudocysts underwent endoscopic (n = 20) or surgical cystogastrostomy (n = 20). The primary end point was pseudocyst recurrence after a 24-month follow-up period. Secondary end points were treatment success or failure, complications, re-interventions, length of hospital stay, physical and mental health scores, and total costs.
RESULTS: At the end of the follow-up period, none of the patients who received endoscopic therapy had a pseudocyst recurrence, compared with 1 patient treated surgically. There were no differences in treatment successes, complications, or re-interventions between the groups. However, the length of hospital stay was shorter for patients who underwent endoscopic cystogastrostomy (median, 2 days, vs 6 days in the surgery group; P < .001). Although there were no differences in physical component scores and mental health component scores (MCS) between groups at baseline on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Survey questionnaire, longitudinal analysis showed significantly better physical component scores (P = .019) and mental health component scores (P = .025) for the endoscopy treatment group. The total mean cost was lower for patients managed by endoscopy than surgery ($7011 vs $15,052; P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial comparing endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage, none of the patients in the endoscopy group had pseudocyst recurrence during the follow-up period, therefore there is no evidence that surgical cystogastrostomy is superior. However, endoscopic treatment was associated with shorter hospital stays, better physical and mental health of patients, and lower cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00826501.
Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biliary Tract Obstruction; CT; Clinical Trial; Comparison; ERCP; EUS; HRQoL; MCS; MRCP; Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey; PCS; Pancreas; SF-36; computed tomography; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram; endoscopic ultrasound; health-related quality of life; magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatogram; mental component score; physical component score

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23732774     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.05.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  135 in total

Review 1.  Therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreaticobiliary disease: A comprehensive review.

Authors:  Fan-Sheng Meng; Zhao-Hong Zhang; Feng Ji
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasonography: Transition towards the future of gastro-intestinal diseases.

Authors:  Stefania De Lisi; Marc Giovannini
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Electrocautery vs non-electrocautery dilation catheters in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage.

Authors:  Katsuya Kitamura; Akira Yamamiya; Yu Ishii; Tomohiro Nomoto; Tadashi Honma; Hitoshi Yoshida
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-07-10

4.  Laparoscopy-assisted open cystogastrostomy and pancreatic debridement for necrotizing pancreatitis (with video).

Authors:  Olivier Gerin; Flavien Prevot; Abdennaceur Dhahri; Sami Hakim; Richard Delcenserie; Lionel Rebibo; Jean-Marc Regimbeau
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: Assessment of the procedure, technical details and review of the literature.

Authors:  Rajesh Puri; Ragesh Babu Thandassery; Abdulrahman A Alfadda; Saad Al Kaabi
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 6.  Advances in the endoscopic management of pancreatic collections.

Authors:  David Ruiz-Clavijo; Belen González de la Higuera; Juan J Vila
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 7.  Management of pancreatic fluid collections: A comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Amy Tyberg; Kunal Karia; Moamen Gabr; Amit Desai; Rushabh Doshi; Monica Gaidhane; Reem Z Sharaiha; Michel Kahaleh
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures.

Authors:  Vishal Sharma; Surinder S Rana; Deepak K Bhasin
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-06-10

Review 9.  Serum amylase and lipase and urinary trypsinogen and amylase for diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Gianluca Rompianesi; Angus Hann; Oluyemi Komolafe; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-21

Review 10.  New Advances in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis.

Authors:  Mahya Faghih; Christopher Fan; Vikesh K Singh
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.