AIMS: To determine the immediate and long-term results of endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections. METHODS: The data of 80 patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (mean diameter: 11.7 cm, range 3-20; pseudocysts: 24/80, abscess: 20/80, infected walled-off necrosis: 36/80) referred for endoscopic management from October 1997 to March 2008 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Endoscopic drainage techniques included endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided aspiration (2/80), EUS-guided transenteric drainage (70/80) and non-EUS-guided drainage across a spontaneous transenteric fistula (8/80). Endoscopic necrosectomy was carried out in 49/80 (abscesses: 14/20; infected necrosis: 35/36). Procedural complications were bleeding (12/80), perforation (7/80), portal air embolism (1/80) and Ogilvie Syndrome (1/80). Initial technical success was achieved in 78/80 (97.5%) and clinical resolution of the collections was achieved endoscopically in 67/80 (83.8%), with surgery required in 13/80 (perforation: four; endoscopically inaccessible areas: two; inadequate drainage: seven). Within 6 months five patients required surgery due to recurrent fluid collections; over a mean follow up of 31 months, surgery was required in four more patients due to recurrent collections as a consequence of underlying pancreatic duct abnormalities that could not be treated endoscopically. The long-term success of endoscopic treatment was 58/80 (72.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections is safe and effective, with excellent immediate and long-term results. Endoscopic necrosectomy has a risk of serious complications. The underlying pancreatic duct abnormalities must be addressed to prevent recurrence of fluid collections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seewald et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: