Nikita Verma1, Mukul Maurya1, Pankaj Gupta2, Jayanta Samanta3, Harshal Mandavdhare3, Vishal Sharma3, Usha Dutta3, Rakesh Kochhar3. 1. Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 2. Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. Pankajgupta959@gmail.com. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the success rate, clinical outcomes, and complications of retroperitoneal (RP) versus transperitoneal (TP) percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of the necrotic pancreatic fluid collections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis who underwent PCD of lesser sac collections amenable to drainage via both TP and RP routes. The patients were divided into two groups based on the route of drainage (group I, RP, and group II, TP). The technical success, clinical success, complications, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the timing of drainage (acute necrotic collections, ANC vs. walled-off necrosis, WON) and organ failure (OF). RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients [mean age, 38.7 ± 12.3 years, 54 males] were included in the study. Group I and II comprised 22 (27.8%) and 57 (72.2%) patients, respectively. The procedures were technically successful in all the patients. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups. The clinical success was higher in group II (75.4%) as compared to group I (54.5%). However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.070). There was no significant difference in the hospital stay (p = 0.298), intensive care unit stay (p = 0.401), need for surgical necrosectomy (p = 0.243), and mortality (p = 0.112) between the two groups. The outcomes in patients with OF and ANC were not affected by the route of PCD. Clinical success rate was significantly higher in WON undergoing TP drainage (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Both RP and TP routes of PCD are safe and effective. Clinical success rate was significantly higher in WON undergoing TP drainage.
PURPOSE: To compare the success rate, clinical outcomes, and complications of retroperitoneal (RP) versus transperitoneal (TP) percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of the necrotic pancreatic fluid collections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis who underwent PCD of lesser sac collections amenable to drainage via both TP and RP routes. The patients were divided into two groups based on the route of drainage (group I, RP, and group II, TP). The technical success, clinical success, complications, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the timing of drainage (acute necrotic collections, ANC vs. walled-off necrosis, WON) and organ failure (OF). RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients [mean age, 38.7 ± 12.3 years, 54 males] were included in the study. Group I and II comprised 22 (27.8%) and 57 (72.2%) patients, respectively. The procedures were technically successful in all the patients. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups. The clinical success was higher in group II (75.4%) as compared to group I (54.5%). However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.070). There was no significant difference in the hospital stay (p = 0.298), intensive care unit stay (p = 0.401), need for surgical necrosectomy (p = 0.243), and mortality (p = 0.112) between the two groups. The outcomes in patients with OF and ANC were not affected by the route of PCD. Clinical success rate was significantly higher in WON undergoing TP drainage (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Both RP and TP routes of PCD are safe and effective. Clinical success rate was significantly higher in WON undergoing TP drainage.