Literature DB >> 27433292

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

Katsuya Kitamura1, Akira Yamamiya1, Yu Ishii1, Tomohiro Nomoto1, Tadashi Honma1, Hitoshi Yoshida1.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the safety and utility of an electrocautery dilation catheter for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage.
METHODS: A single-center, exploratory, retrospective study was conducted between August 2010 and August 2014. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of our institution. Informed, written consent was obtained from each patient prior to the procedure. The subjects included 28 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) for symptomatic pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) by fine needle aspiration using a 19-gauge needle. These patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on the use of an electrocautery dilation catheter as a fistula dilation device; 15 patients were treated with an electrocautery dilation catheter (electrocautery group), and 13 patients were treated with a non-electrocautery dilation catheter (non-electrocautery group). We evaluated the technical and clinical successes and the adverse events associated with EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs between the two groups.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, type, location and diameter of PFCs between the groups. Thirteen patients (87%) in the electrocautery group and 10 patients (77%) in the non-electrocautery group presented with infected PFCs. The technical success rates of EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs were 100% (15/15) and 100% (13/13) for the electrocautery and the non-electrocautery groups, respectively. The clinical success rates of EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs were 67% (10/15) and 69% (9/13) for the electrocautery and the non-electrocautery groups, respectively (P = 0.794). The procedure time of EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs in the electrocautery group was significantly shorter than that of the non-electrocautery group (mean ± SD: 30 ± 12 min vs 52 ± 20 min, P < 0.001). Adverse events associated with EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs occurred in 0 patients and 1 patient for the electrocautery and the non-electrocautery groups, respectively (P = 0.942).
CONCLUSION: EUS-TD using an electrocautery dilation catheter as a fistula dilation device for the treatment of symptomatic PFCs appears safe and contributes to a shorter procedure time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electrocautery dilation catheter; Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transmural drainage; Fistula dilation device; Pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collection; Procedure time

Year:  2016        PMID: 27433292      PMCID: PMC4937161          DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i13.458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc


  25 in total

1.  Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts.

Authors:  L Weckman; M-L Kylänpää; P Puolakkainen; J Halttunen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts or pancreatic abscesses using a therapeutic echo endoscope.

Authors:  M Giovannini; C Pesenti; A L Rolland; V Moutardier; J R Delpero
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 10.093

3.  One-step, simultaneous double-wire technique facilitates pancreatic pseudocyst and abscess drainage (with videos).

Authors:  Stefan Seewald; Frank Thonke; Tiing-Leong Ang; Salem Omar; Uwe Seitz; Stefan Groth; Yan Zhong; Emre Yekebas; Jakob Izbicki; Nib Soehendra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes.

Authors:  Lawrence C Hookey; Sébastien Debroux; Myriam Delhaye; Marianna Arvanitakis; Olivier Le Moine; Jacques Devière
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  A comparative evaluation of outcomes of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts.

Authors:  Venkata S Akshintala; Payal Saxena; Atif Zaheer; Uzma Rana; Susan M Hutfless; Anne Marie Lennon; Marcia I Canto; Anthony N Kalloo; Mouen A Khashab; Vikesh K Singh
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided one-step transmural drainage of cystic abdominal lesions with a large-channel echo endoscope.

Authors:  H Seifert; C Dietrich; T Schmitt; W Caspary; T Wehrmann
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Cystogastrotomy entirely performed under endosonography guidance for pancreatic pseudocyst: results in six patients.

Authors:  M Giovannini; D Bernardini; J F Seitz
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 9.427

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

Authors:  Shyam Varadarajulu; Ji Young Bang; Bryce S Sutton; Jessica M Trevino; John D Christein; C Mel Wilcox
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  A comparison of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Authors:  Timothy B Gardner; Prabhleen Chahal; Georgios I Papachristou; Santhi Swaroop Vege; Bret T Petersen; Christopher J Gostout; Mark D Topazian; Naoki Takahashi; Michael G Sarr; Todd H Baron
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711].

Authors:  Sandra van Brunschot; Janneke van Grinsven; Rogier P Voermans; Olaf J Bakker; Marc G H Besselink; Marja A Boermeester; Thomas L Bollen; Koop Bosscha; Stefan A Bouwense; Marco J Bruno; Vincent C Cappendijk; Esther C Consten; Cornelis H Dejong; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Casper H van Eijck; G Willemien Erkelens; Harry van Goor; Mohammed Hadithi; Jan-Willem Haveman; Sijbrand H Hofker; Jeroen J M Jansen; Johan S Laméris; Krijn P van Lienden; Eric R Manusama; Maarten A Meijssen; Chris J Mulder; Vincent B Nieuwenhuis; Jan-Werner Poley; Rogier J de Ridder; Camiel Rosman; Alexander F Schaapherder; Joris J Scheepers; Erik J Schoon; Tom Seerden; B W Marcel Spanier; Jan Willem A Straathof; Robin Timmer; Niels G Venneman; Frank P Vleggaar; Ben J Witteman; Hein G Gooszen; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Paul Fockens
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  2 in total

1.  Cystotome or nonelectrocautery dilating catheters for fistula tract dilatation during endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.

Authors:  Surinder Singh Rana; Nikhil Bush; Rajesh Gupta
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.628

2.  Safety and efficacy of ultra-tapered mechanical dilator for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and pancreatic duct drainage compared with electrocautery dilator (with video).

Authors:  Mitsuyoshi Honjo; Takao Itoi; Takayoshi Tsuchiya; Reina Tanaka; Ryosuke Tonozuka; Shuntaro Mukai; Atsushi Sofuni; Yuichi Nagakawa; Hidenori Iwasaki; Takanori Kanai
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.628

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.