OBJECTIVES: For benign pancreatic duct strictures/obstructions (BPDS/O), endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is performed when endoscopic transpapillary pancreatic drainage (ETPD) fails. We clarified the clinical outcomes for patients with BPDS/O who underwent endoscopic interventions through the era where EUS-PD was available. METHODS: Forty-five patients with BPDS/O who underwent ETPD/EUS-PD were included. We retrospectively investigated overall technical and clinical success rates for endoscopic interventions, adverse events, and clinical outcomes after successful endoscopic interventions. RESULTS: The technical success rates for ETPD and EUS-PD were 77% (35/45) and 80% (8/10), respectively, and the overall technical success rate using two drainage procedures was 91% (41/45). Among the 41 patients who underwent successful endoscopic procedures, the clinical success rates were 97% for the symptomatic patients (35/36). The rates of procedure-related pancreatitis after ETPD and EUS-PD were 13% and 30%, respectively. After successful endoscopic interventions, the cumulative 3-year rate of developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis was calculated to be 27%, and only two patients finally needed surgery. Continuous smoking after endoscopic interventions was shown to be a risk factor for developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: By adding EUS-PD to ETPD, the technical success rate for endoscopic interventions for BPDS/O was more than 90%, and the clinical success rate was nearly 100%. Due to the low rate of surgery after endoscopic interventions, including EUS-PD, for patients with BPDS/O, EUS-PD may contribute to their good clinical courses as a salvage treatment for refractory BPDS/O.
OBJECTIVES: For benign pancreatic duct strictures/obstructions (BPDS/O), endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is performed when endoscopic transpapillary pancreatic drainage (ETPD) fails. We clarified the clinical outcomes for patients with BPDS/O who underwent endoscopic interventions through the era where EUS-PD was available. METHODS: Forty-five patients with BPDS/O who underwent ETPD/EUS-PD were included. We retrospectively investigated overall technical and clinical success rates for endoscopic interventions, adverse events, and clinical outcomes after successful endoscopic interventions. RESULTS: The technical success rates for ETPD and EUS-PD were 77% (35/45) and 80% (8/10), respectively, and the overall technical success rate using two drainage procedures was 91% (41/45). Among the 41 patients who underwent successful endoscopic procedures, the clinical success rates were 97% for the symptomatic patients (35/36). The rates of procedure-related pancreatitis after ETPD and EUS-PD were 13% and 30%, respectively. After successful endoscopic interventions, the cumulative 3-year rate of developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis was calculated to be 27%, and only two patients finally needed surgery. Continuous smoking after endoscopic interventions was shown to be a risk factor for developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: By adding EUS-PD to ETPD, the technical success rate for endoscopic interventions for BPDS/O was more than 90%, and the clinical success rate was nearly 100%. Due to the low rate of surgery after endoscopic interventions, including EUS-PD, for patients with BPDS/O, EUS-PD may contribute to their good clinical courses as a salvage treatment for refractory BPDS/O.