Liu Wang1, Yin Zhang1, Bingfang Chen1, Yanbo Ding1. 1. Department of Digestive Diseases, The First People's Hospital of Changzhou, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most frequent and harmful complication following pancreatic surgery. Traditional management includes conservative treatment, percutaneous drainage (PD), and reoperation. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EUS (Endoscopic ultrasound)-guided drainage by using nasocystic tubes combined with single or 2 stents for POPF. METHODS: Patients who had POPF after surgery and then underwent EUS-guided drainage, from October 2016 to October 2019, were enrolled in this study. Technical success was defined as successful transgastric puncture of the peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) and deployment of the nasocystic tube and stents. Clinical success was defined as symptomatic improvement and the resolution of the fluid collection on follow-up CT scan. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients received EUS-guided drainage. In 13 patients, a nasocystic tube was placed in the PFC combined with a double-pigtail plastic stent. In the remaining 2 patients, a nasocystic tube and 2 stents each were inserted in place. Technical success was achieved in 15 of 15 patients (100%). Clinical success was achieved in 14 of 15 patients (93.3%). In one case, the stent was blocked on the 10th day after the procedure. The median time between surgery and EUS-guided drainage was 10 (5-32) days. The median time of hospital stay after EUS-guided drainage was 16 (11-48) days. Operation-unrelated death occurred in 1 patient (7%) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided drainage with a nasocystic tube and double-pigtail stents appears to be safe and technically feasible, and could be an alternative treatment for patients with POPF.
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the most frequent and harmful complication following pancreatic surgery. Traditional management includes conservative treatment, percutaneous drainage (PD), and reoperation. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EUS (Endoscopic ultrasound)-guided drainage by using nasocystic tubes combined with single or 2 stents for POPF. METHODS: Patients who had POPF after surgery and then underwent EUS-guided drainage, from October 2016 to October 2019, were enrolled in this study. Technical success was defined as successful transgastric puncture of the peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) and deployment of the nasocystic tube and stents. Clinical success was defined as symptomatic improvement and the resolution of the fluid collection on follow-up CT scan. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients received EUS-guided drainage. In 13 patients, a nasocystic tube was placed in the PFC combined with a double-pigtail plastic stent. In the remaining 2 patients, a nasocystic tube and 2 stents each were inserted in place. Technical success was achieved in 15 of 15 patients (100%). Clinical success was achieved in 14 of 15 patients (93.3%). In one case, the stent was blocked on the 10th day after the procedure. The median time between surgery and EUS-guided drainage was 10 (5-32) days. The median time of hospital stay after EUS-guided drainage was 16 (11-48) days. Operation-unrelated death occurred in 1 patient (7%) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided drainage with a nasocystic tube and double-pigtail stents appears to be safe and technically feasible, and could be an alternative treatment for patients with POPF.
Authors: Olaf J Bakker; Mark C van Baal; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink; Jan-Werner Poley; Joos Heisterkamp; Thomas L Bollen; Hein G Gooszen; Casper H van Eijck Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Giovanni Butturini; Abe Fingerhut; Charles Yeo; Jakob Izbicki; John Neoptolemos; Michael Sarr; William Traverso; Marcus Buchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Antonio Romano; Mario Spaggiari; Michele Masetti; Romano Sassatelli; Fabrizio Di Benedetto; Nicola De Ruvo; Roberto Montalti; Gian Piero Guerrini; Roberto Ballarin; Maria Grazia De Blasiis; Giorgio E Gerunda Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christian Jürgensen; Marius Distler; Alexander Arlt; Stefan Brückner; Mark Ellrichmann; Katja Matthes; Marleen Ludwig; Stephan Sulk; Laura Romberg; Sebastian Zeissig; Clemens Schafmayer; Sebastian Hinz; Thilo Welsch; Marcus Bahra; Heiko Aselmann; Jürgen Weitz; Fritz Klein; Thomas Becker; Jochen Hampe Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M Mutignani; A Tringali; E Khodadadian; L Petruzziello; C Spada; G Spera; P Familiari; G Costamagna Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: David Fuks; Guillaume Piessen; Emmanuel Huet; Marion Tavernier; Philippe Zerbib; Francis Michot; Michel Scotte; Jean-Pierre Triboulet; Christophe Mariette; Laurence Chiche; Ephraïm Salame; Philippe Segol; François-René Pruvot; François Mauvais; Horace Roman; Pierre Verhaeghe; Jean-Marc Regimbeau Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-09-07 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Siu Tong Law; Carlos De La SernaHiguera; Paula Gil Simón; Manuel Pérez-MirandaCastillo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ali Ramouz; Saeed Shafiei; Sadeq Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh; Elias Khajeh; Ricardo Rio-Tinto; Sanam Fakour; Andreas Brandl; Gil Goncalves; Christoph Berchtold; Markus W Büchler; Arianeb Mehrabi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 3.453