Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage by Endoscopic Ultrasound: An Update

Shashideep Singhal; Stephen R. Rotman; Monica Gaidhane; Michel Kahaleh

doi:10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.506

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 46(5); 2013 > Article

Special Issue Article of IDEN 2013 Review Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage by Endoscopic Ultrasound: An Update: Shashideep Singhal¹, Stephen R. Rotman², Monica Gaidhane², Michel Kahaleh²; Clinical Endoscopy 2013;46(5):506-514.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.506
Published online: September 30, 2013

¹Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

²Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.

Correspondence: Michel Kahaleh. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10021, USA. Tel: +1-646-962-4797, Fax: +1-646-962-4000, mkahaleh@gmail.com

• Received: June 1, 2013 • Revised: July 25, 2013 • Accepted: August 1, 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

11,485 Views
111 Download
61 Crossref
75 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
APPROPRIATE CANDIDATES
APPROPRIATE ENDOSCOPISTS
INSTRUMENTATION
PREDRAINAGE EVALUATION
PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Endoscopic management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is now considered to be first line therapy. Expanded use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) techniques has resulted in increased applicability, safety, and efficacy of endoscopic transluminal PFC drainage. Steps include EUS-guided trangastric or transduodenal fistula creation into the PFC followed by stent placement or nasocystic drain deployment in order to decompress the collection. With the remarkable improvement in the available accessories and stents and development of exchange free access device; EUS drainage techniques have become simpler and less time consuming. The use of self-expandable metal stents with modifications to drain PFC has helped in overcoming some previously encountered challenges. PFCs considered suitable for endoscopic drainage include collection present for greater than 4 weeks, possessing a well-formed wall, position accessible endoscopically and located within 1 cm of the duodenal or gastric walls. Indications for EUS-guided drainage have been increasing which include unusual location of the collection, small window of entry, nonbulging collections, coagulopathy, intervening varices, failed conventional transmural drainage, indeterminate adherence of PFC to the luminal wall or suspicion of malignancy. In this article, we present a review of literature to date and discuss the recent developments in EUS-guided PFC drainage.
Keywords: Endosonography; Pancreatic fluid collections; Pancreatic pseudocyst; Nonbulging pancreatic fluid collections

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) can develop secondary to fluid leakage or liquefaction of pancreatic necrosis.1 PFCs are also seen in association with acute and chronic pancreatitis, abdominal trauma, and surgery.2-5 The Atlanta classification has been accepted as the current standard classification system.6,7 Other factors known to influence PFC creation include underlying pancreatic ductal damage, the severity of acute pancreatitis, and maturation of the collection with respect to the onset of acute pancreatitis.7-11 Abdominal pain, infected collection, gastric outlet or biliary obstruction, fluid leakage, fistulization, and enlargement of the PFC are all indications for drainage.7-11 Apart from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal endoscopic drainage of PFCs, other alternative therapies include endoscopic transpapillary drainage, direct surgical drainage, and percutaneous drainage. Both surgical drainage and radiologically-guided percutaneous drainage are effective modalities for PFC drainage, but not without adverse events (7% to 37%).7,12-15 An indwelling catheter is required for the percutaneous technique and may lead to a new possible nidus for infection as well as a percutaneous fistula formation.16-18

Many tertiary care centers have adopted the endoscopic approach to PFC drainage as the preferred option as endoscopic drainage has been reported to have a clinical success rates of 70% to 87% with complication rates of 11% to 34%.7,19-21 In addition, endoscopic drainage of PFC can be accomplished with a transmural or transpapillary placement of plastic stents, however this option has fallen out of favor in most recent years.7,22

Conventional transmural drainage without EUS carries a high risk of perforation in the absence of an obvious, visible bulge.23,24 While bulging collections provide an easier target for the operator, nonbulging PFC are present in 42% to 48%.25,26 With EUS-guidance, entry into cysts has been shown to be safer.23 EUS has also provided an advantage for drainage of pancreatic abscesses and necrosectomy of organized liquefied necrotic collections in addition to the above described nonbulging PFCs.1,7,27,28

METHODS

An extensive English language literature search was conducted on PubMed and Medline to identify the peer reviewed original and review articles. Key words included EUS, PFC, endoluminal, transluminal, transgastric, transduodenal, drainage, stenting, and adverse events. In this article, we present the data available reviewed up to February 2013. The references of pertinent studies and review articles were manually searched to identify additional relevant studies. The indication, procedural details, technical and clinical success rates, complications and limitations are discussed. The summary of studies included in the review is shown in Table 1.19,21,25,29-46 In addition, our experience with EUS-guided PFC drainage technique is also described.

APPROPRIATE CANDIDATES

PFC development in acute or chronic pancreatitis dictate different indications for drainage.23 Cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging prior to drainage is essential in defining the patient's anatomy and determining an appropriate target window for intervention. It also permits exclusion of a cystic neoplasm in patients without a history of acute or chronic pancreatitis.28 When the fluid collection is not acutely responding to conservative management, drainage is indicated, especially if the patient has signs of sepsis. In chronic pancreatitis, drainage should be performed for symptomatic management including pain, gastric outlet obstruction, or biliary compression resulting in jaundice.23 Size alone has not yet been described as a sole indicator for PFC drainage.47

Nonbulging fluid collections, known portal hypertension/high pretest probability of bleeding, prior failed traditional transmural drainage, or the need to exclude cystic neoplasm are all indications to strongly consider EUS-guided drainage over other modalities.32,34,47,48 It is important to know if the collection is primarily of liquid contents or if there is a component of solid debris. We recommend assessing the main pancreatic duct at the time of PFC drainage with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as patients with major main pancreatic duct leaks may require stent placement to bridge the leak.28,49

APPROPRIATE ENDOSCOPISTS

Endoscopic ultrasonography for drainage of PFCs should only be performed by physicians trained in both EUS and ERCP skill sets. It is also important to note that this procedure should only be performed in centers with available pancreaticobiliary surgeons and interventional radiologists in the event that a complication transpires.

INSTRUMENTATION

Linear array echo-endoscopes with a channel size of at least 3 mm should be used to allow placement of larger 10 French stents.23,32 The GF-UCT 140-180 (Olympus America Inc., Center Valley, PA, USA) has a working channel of 3.7 mm and the EG 38 UT (Pentax, Tokyo, Japan) has a working channel of 3.8 mm. A 19 gauge (G) fine needle aspiration needle (Wilson-Cook, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) can be used for pseudocyst puncture to enable the insertion of a larger 0.035-in guidewire through the needle for pseudocyst drainage. Dilation of the fistula created can be performed using a wire-guided balloon or cystenterostome.26

The single step approach led to the development of instruments that utilize a 19 G stainless steel puncture needle (Grosse, Daldorf, Germany) loaded with a modified 7- or 10-Fr stent and a Teflon pusher catheter (Wilson-Cook).50,51 A needle wire device, introduced by Giovannini et al.,52 consists of a 0.035-in needle wire suitable for cutting current, a 5.5 Fr dilator and an 8.5 Fr stent (length 6 cm) with a pusher preassembled on the same catheter (Giovannini Needle Wire Oasis; Cook Endoscopy, Winston-Salem, NC, USA). Those products are, however, not currently available in the USA. Use of a novel exchange free access device (NAVIX; Xlumena Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) has been described recently by many authors.44-46 It enables access, tract dilation, and guidewire placement, reducing device exchanges.

PREDRAINAGE EVALUATION

As described above, abdominal CT or MRI (with contrast) should be obtained to describe the patient's anatomy as well as to aid in describing the collection's contents. Additionally, imaging helps to describe the relationship of the PFC with the surrounding lumen and vascular structures, and to discount any other underlying etiologies of PFC for which treatment may differ.23,47 Given that this is an invasive procedure, the patient should have a complete blood count to assess for thrombocytopenia as well as a screen for coagulopathy.

PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION

Using EUS, the PFC is first located. Color doppler ultrasound is then used to identify regional and surrounding vasculature. An intraluminal site, gastric or duodenal, is identified as closest to the PFC, preferably not more than 1 to 2 cm. A transesophageal approach has been attempted which was associated with tension pneumothorax.45 A fistula between the pseudocyst and the stomach or duodenum is created by introducing a 19 G needle directly into the PFC (Fig. 1). A sample of cyst contents is aspirated and submitted for biochemical analysis, and if infection is suspected, a sample should be sent for gram stain and culture. Contrast filling of the pseudocyst can be conducted under direct fluoroscopy to assess and document size, boundaries, and determine if communication with the pancreatic duct is apparent. Drainage can be achieved by using either the needle knife technique or the Seldinger technique. In the Seldinger technique, a 0.035-in guide wire is introduced through the needle and coiled within the pseudocyst (Figs. 2, 3). Following the needle insertion, the fistula created is dilated with either a 6 or 8 mm balloon over the guide wire which is coiled into the pseudocyst (Figs. 4, 5). The balloon is exchanged off of the guide wire and one or two 10-Fr double-pigtail stents or appropriately sized self-expandable metal stents are placed (Figs. 6, 7). Optionally, a nasocystic drain may be placed to flush the fluid collection.53 An alternative to the balloon dilation technique involves using a cystenterostome over the guide wire to enlarge the fistula using cautery.26 If the pancreatic duct is disrupted or a dominant stricture is present, the pancreatic duct should be stented.27

Gornals et al.45 reported median procedure time of 22 minutes (range, 10 to 30) in cases where NAVIX system was used, versus 40 minutes (range, 25 to 55) in cases with device exchanges. NAVIX device is a multifunction, exchange-free system that enables efficient pancreatic pseudocyst procedures due to the following features; 3.5 mm switchblade provides smooth access across the tissue layers, 8 mm anchor balloon secures the catheter position in the pseudocyst, aspiration port provides access for sampling, 10 mm balloon for tract dilation and two guidewire placement ports.46

Regarding maintenance period and removal criteria for stents, we recommend monthly surveillance with cross sectional imaging of the PFC. Once resolution is confirmed with restoration of pancreatic duct integrity, all stents should be ideally removed.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Wiersema54 in 1992 reported the first EUS-guided drainage of a PFC using an interventional (large-channel) EUS endoscope. Shortly after in 1995, Binmoeller and Soehendra55 reported an overall initial success rate with EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage of 78%. Giovannini et al.29 reported an 88.5% success rate (n=35) undergoing the same procedure for either pseudocyst drainage or pancreatic abscess drainage. Four of the patients in the Giovannini study went on to require surgery.29 A 2006 prospective study from Antillon et al.25 described 82% of patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage resulting in complete pseudocyst resolution, with only two out of thirty-three subjects experiencing major complications; and only one experiencing recurrence over 46 weeks. Krüger et al.31 described 36 patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage with a single-step needle wire device and 8.5 Fr stents. They found a resolution rate of 88% with a 12% recurrence rate over a 24-month period. PFC resolution was achieved by additional endoscopic cyst irrigation in 10 patients (30%); and might be related to the use of smaller diameter plastic stents. Hookey et al.21 studied 116 patients presenting with fluid collections (acute, pseudocysts, necrosis, and abscess) undergoing EUS-guided drainage. They employed EUS-guided transmural drainage technique in 32 patients, and combination of transpapillary and transmural drainage under EUS guidance in 19/41 patients. EUS was used in 44% (51/116) of all cases. The 90.6% of the EUS-guided transmural drainage cases were successful (29/32). The recurrence rate was 12.5% (4/32) with three complications (9.4%) reported. In this group, 12/32 patients (37.5%) had bulging fluid collections.21

A 2007 retrospective study by Lopes et al.33 of 51 patients undergoing EUS-guided transmural drainage of PFCs reported a 94% (48/51) success rate. There was a recurrence rate of 17.7% over 39 weeks. The placement of two stents decreased the complication rate for abscesses, while placement of a nasocystic drain did not.33

Kahaleh et al.32 reported a prospective study comparing 99 patients who underwent pseudocyst drainage using either conventional transmural drainage or EUS-guided drainage. Fifty-three patients who had a visible bulge and no obvious portal hypertension, underwent conventional drainage, while 46 patients underwent EUS-guided drainage. A comparable number of patients in each group underwent transpapillary stent placement for pancreatic duct disruption or stricture. Success rates at 1 month (93% vs. 94%) and 6 months (84% vs. 91%) were comparable. Complications occurred in 19% of EUS-guided drainage versus 18% of conventional transmural drainage, including three of bleeding, eight of infection, three of stent migration, and five of pneumoperitoneum. No significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed between the two techniques. The study concluded that the choice of technique is likely best predicted by individual patient presentation and local expertise, and recommended EUS for nonbulging collections and pseudocysts at risk for bleeding (i.e., intervening vessels or coagulopathy).32 Barthet et al.35 published a similar concept using EUS-guided transmural drainage performed on 28 patients (56%). The 90% of these patients achieved sustained response over a period of 12 months.35

A study from Varadarajulu et al.36 in 2008 compared the success rate between EUS and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. In this prospective randomized trial, all patients in the EUS group had successful drainage while only 33% patients (5/15) in the conventional EGD group were successful.36 Major procedure-related bleeding occurred in two patients in the EGD group, one of whom died. Given these results, the study's authors concluded that EUS should be considered as a first-line therapy for pseudocyst drainage. However, a higher than average failure rate in the conventional group was noted when compared to a previously published study.26

Puri et al.56 reported the use of EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage technique involving the combined use of stents and nasocystic drainage. The authors prospectively studied 40 patients for EUS-guided symptomatic pseudocyst drainage, resistant to conservative treatment, and having no bulge seen on endoscopy. Successful drainage using EUS was achieved in all subjects. One patient required surgical resection of an infected pseudocyst because of bleeding inside the cyst. All patients had the double pigtail stents removed within 10 weeks.56

Zheng and Qin57 examined the efficacy and safety of 21 EUS-guided transgastric stentings of PFCs resulting specifically from trauma. They were able to successfully stent 90.5% (19/21) of these patients; the other two required surgery for pseudocyst drainage. Complications included two each of infected pseudocysts and stent obstructions. No PFC recurrences were seen over a 29-month period.57

In 2011, Varadarajulu et al.58 analyzed complications from EUS-guided PFC drainage in 148 patients. Two patients (1.3%) experienced perforation at the site of transmural stenting. Both of these occurred with the PFC located in the uncinate region of the pancreas; no perforations occurred elsewhere. One patient experienced bleeding, one had stent migration, while four experienced infections. The authors concluded that EUS-guided PFC drainage is a safe and effective procedure and also noted that a majority of the few complications seen were managed endoscopically.58

Will et al.59 published on 147 patients presenting with pseudocysts, abscesses, and necrosis. Within their follow-up period of 19.4 to 20.9 months, they documented success in 96.9% of patients with pseudocysts, 97.5% of those with pancreatic abscesses, and 94.1% of patients with necrosis. The group found an overall average recurrence rate of 15.4% between the three different diagnoses.59

Seewald et al.38 in a long-term follow-up study involving 80 patients reported 83% initial clinical success rate for transenteric drainage and/or necrosectomy in patients with PFCs. The long-term success rate was 72.5% (mean follow-up 21 months) due to the need for surgery in some patients either due to recurrence of fluid collections or failure of endoscopic treatment of pancreatic duct abnormalities. The study emphasized the need for EUS guidance for transenteric access of PFC to decrease the risk of bleeding. Additionally, addressing pancreatic duct abnormalities either endoscopically or surgically can prevent recurrence. Based on the literature review and our own clinical experience, we believe that most recurrences are related to the inability to resolve the underlying pancreatic duct issue, i.e., pancreatic duct leak or stricture. Either systematic ERCP for pancreatic duct exploration or imaging such as secretine MRI-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for all those patients is recommended. Unfortunately, to date, there are no large, randomized controlled studies comparing convention transmural and EUS-guided drainage in similar cohorts.

Use of covered self-expanding metal stents

The type and number of appropriate stents following pancreatic pseudocyst drainage also remains equivocal. Most authors have conventionally used large plastic double pigtailed stents.20,32 Metal stents provide some theoretical advantages when compared to plastic as the radial force provided can tamponade bleeding vessels within the wall of the PFC. Additionally, wider diameter provides better drainage and possibly increases final success and reduced time to resolution. A study from Talreja et al.45 reported 18 patients who underwent PFC drainage using covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMSs; VIABIL; Conmed, Utica, NY, USA). All but two underwent drainage with EUS-guidance. The 95% patients (17/18) responded successfully, with 78% of patients achieving complete resolution of their fluid collection.60 Another group has reported their experience with the use of metal stents for PFC drainage and facilitating necrosectomy.61

Fabbri et al.39 reported excellent success rates 17/20 (85%) with CSEMS in PFC cases with a mean follow-up of 610 days. The study reported stent migration and failure of endoscopic stent removal in one case each. Berzosa et al.41 also reported excellent success rates with CSEMS in seven patients with complete resolution in 9/10 PFCs with no complications.

Penn et al.42 reported used of double pigtail stent within the lumen of CSEMS to prevent migration of CSEMS in 20 patients. Migration of the CSEMS on follow-up endoscopy or imaging occurred in three patients; in two of these patients the CSEMS migrated from the pseudocyst into the gastric lumen, but the inner pigtail of the internal plastic stent remained within the collapsed pseudocyst cavity, thereby preventing complete migration. Initial success was achieved in 17/20 patients, with recurrence of PFC in three patients after stent removal. The authors performed a routine ERCP as a second procedure which is helpful in management of pancreatic duct disruptions but increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.42

Weilert et al.44 described use of the NAVIX one step access device for successful placement of CSEMS in 18 patients. The procedure was technically successful without any complications in all patients. In one patient, cystgastrostomy dilation resulted in dehiscence and was treated with repeat CSEMS placement. With this technique, the authors showed successful CSEMS placement without tract dilation for initial drainage for PFCs with indeterminate adherence to the luminal wall.

Based on the studies' conclusions, advantages of CSEMS include need of only a single stent for drainage, eliminating the need of accessing cyst cavity multiple times, decreased risk of occlusion, and decreased number of repeat procedures. However, stent migration is a potential limitation seen with CSEMS as well.39,42

New developments in stents

Recently, a novel stent with dog bone shape has been developed in an attempt to better appose the PFC wall to the stomach wall and possibly improve drainage under EUS guidance. Itoi et al.40 first reported the use of such lumen-apposing stent (AXIOS; Xlumena Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) which is a fully covered, 10-mm diameter, nitinol, braided stent with bilateral anchor flanges designed to hold tissue in apposition. The AXIOS stents were successful in all cases without any complications, with none requiring repeat procedure during the 11.4 months median follow-up time. In one case, the stent migrated into the stomach without any consequence, while others were found to be patent at the time of removal.

Gornals et al.45 compared AXIOS with plastic double pigtail stents and found similar success rates. Authors reported higher complication rates and significantly greater number of stents used and mean procedure time with pigtail stents compared to AXIOS. One patient developed a tension pneumothorax secondary to transesophageal AXIOS placement. Due to the large size of the stent and anatomic structures involved, placement of AXIOS through the esophagus might be technically limited. The AXIOS stent thus far appears to be a remarkable development in the field of endoscopic PFC drainage. Lastly, large fully covered metal stents (esophageal stents) can offer a safer pathway to drain pancreatic necrosis. With further experience and development in stent designs, we are likely to see more efficient and easily deployable stents in the near future.

There is a growing body of research and literature report EUS-guided transmural PFC drainage as a safe and effective approach due to the continual improvement in techniques and instrumentation. A recent study by Mangiavillano et al.43 found single step EUS-guided drainage of PFC technically and clinically more successful than a two step technique. Also, the reported ease of use, technical success and safety of NAVIX device suggest a remarkable breakthrough in the technique.46 Studies like these are likely to standardize, simplify, and streamline EUS-guided drainage of PFC and help in its widespread adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of EUS-guided PFC drainage increased dramatically over the last decade. Due to the extensive global use of EUS Guided PFC drainage, a growing number of studies are reporting on the safety and efficacy of evolving techniques. Many of these studies have examined the question of whether or not EUS-guidance is beneficial when compared to conventional transmural pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. Recent studies have also compared different techniques and stents. Yet, a large multicenter randomized controlled trial has not been reported that compares the two approaches to date. EUS-guidance offers clear benefits over conventional drainage such as defining the characteristics of a particular PFC, ruling out alternative diagnoses such as malignancy, and assessment for intervening vasculature. EUS guidance has also shown to be advantageous in accessing nonbulging PFCs, PFCs with indeterminate wall adherence or in high-risk clinical scenarios such as coagulopathy, intervening varices, or failed conventional transmural drainage. Accessibility to EUS guidance and availability of endoscopists trained in the modality are increasing. Continued advances in accessories such as NAVIX one step delivery system, use of CSEMS and AXIOS stents, expansion to more tertiary care centers, and further training of personnel will continue to make EUS techniques safer and more efficacious. Future large sample-sized comparative studies are also necessary for continued evaluation of these techniques.

Dr. Michel Kahaleh has received grant support from Boston Scientific, Fujinon, EMcison, Xlumena Inc., MaunaKea, and MI Tech. He is a consultant for Xlumena Inc.

REFERENCES

1. Baron TH, Thaggard WG, Morgan DE, Stanley RJ. Endoscopic therapy for organized pancreatic necrosis. Gastroenterology 1996;111:755–764. 8780582.Article PubMed
2. Baillie J. Pancreatic pseudocysts (Part I). Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:873–879. 15173808.Article PubMed
3. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, et al. Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997;226:248–257. 9339931.Article PubMed PMC
4. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Chamlou R, et al. Endoscopic therapy for main pancreatic-duct rupture after Silastic-ring vertical gastroplasty. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:143–151. 15990839.Article PubMed
5. Klöppel G. Pseudocysts and other non-neoplastic cysts of the pancreas. Semin Diagn Pathol 2000;17:7–15. 10721803.PubMed
6. Bradley EL 3rd. A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg 1993;128:586–590. 8489394.Article PubMed
7. Baron TH, Harewood GC, Morgan DE, Yates MR. Outcome differences after endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis, acute pancreatic pseudocysts, and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:7–17. 12085029.Article PubMed
8. Baron TH, Morgan DE. The diagnosis and management of fluid collections associated with pancreatitis. Am J Med 1997;102:555–563. 9217671.Article PubMed
9. Yeo CJ, Bastidas JA, Lynch-Nyhan A, Fishman EK, Zinner MJ, Cameron JL. The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts documented by computed tomography. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;170:411–417. 2326721.PubMed
10. Bradley EL, Clements JL Jr, Gonzalez AC. The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts: a unified concept of management. Am J Surg 1979;137:135–141. 758840.Article PubMed
11. Gouyon B, Lévy P, Ruszniewski P, et al. Predictive factors in the outcome of pseudocysts complicating alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Gut 1997;41:821–825. 9462217.Article PubMed PMC
12. Warshaw AL, Rattner DW. Timing of surgical drainage for pancreatic pseudocyst. Clinical and chemical criteria. Ann Surg 1985;202:720–724. 4073984.Article PubMed PMC
13. Bradley EL 3rd. A fifteen year experience with open drainage for infected pancreatic necrosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;177:215–222. 8356492.Article PubMed
14. Boerma D, van Gulik TM, Obertop H, Gouma DJ. Internal drainage of infected pancreatic pseudocysts: safe or sorry? Dig Surg 1999;16:501–505. 10805550.Article PubMed
15. vanSonnenberg E, Wittich GR, Casola G, et al. Percutaneous drainage of infected and noninfected pancreatic pseudocysts: experience in 101 cases. Radiology 1989;170(3 Pt 1):757–761. 2644662.Article PubMed
16. Ahearne PM, Baillie JM, Cotton PB, Baker ME, Meyers WC, Pappas TN. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based algorithm for the management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Am J Surg 1992;163:111–115. 1733357.Article PubMed
17. Adams DB, Harvey TS, Anderson MC. Percutaneous catheter drainage of infected pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections. Arch Surg 1990;125:1554–1557. 2244807.Article PubMed
18. Neff R. Pancreatic pseudocysts and fluid collections: percutaneous approaches. Surg Clin North Am 2001;81:399–403. 11392426.Article PubMed
19. Binmoeller KF, Seifert H, Walter A, Soehendra N. Transpapillary and transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:219–224. 7498686.Article PubMed
20. Cahen D, Rauws E, Fockens P, Weverling G, Huibregtse K, Bruno M. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: long-term outcome and procedural factors associated with safe and successful treatment. Endoscopy 2005;37:977–983. 16189770.Article PubMed PDF
21. Hookey LC, Debroux S, Delhaye M, Arvanitakis M, Le Moine O, Devière J. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:635–643. 16564865.Article PubMed
22. Delhaye M, Matos C, Devière J. Endoscopic management of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2003;13:717–742. 14986795.Article PubMed
23. Giovannini M. EUS-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2007;9:32–38.Article
24. Howell DA, Holbrook RF, Bosco JJ, Muggia RA, Biber BP. Endoscopic needle localization of pancreatic pseudocysts before transmural drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 1993;39:693–698. 8224695.Article PubMed
25. Antillon MR, Shah RJ, Stiegmann G, Chen YK. Single-step EUS-guided transmural drainage of simple and complicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:797–803. 16650541.Article PubMed
26. Sanchez Cortes E, Maalak A, Le Moine O, et al. Endoscopic cystenterostomy of nonbulging pancreatic fluid collections. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:380–386. 12196776.Article PubMed
27. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Bali MA, et al. Pancreatic-fluid collections: a randomized controlled trial regarding stent removal after endoscopic transmural drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:609–619. 17324413.Article PubMed
28. Baron TH. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:369–372. 17906903.Article PubMed
29. Giovannini M, Pesenti C, Rolland AL, Moutardier V, Delpero JR. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts or pancreatic abscesses using a therapeutic echo endoscope. Endoscopy 2001;33:473–477. 11437038.Article PubMed PDF
30. Azar RR, Oh YS, Janec EM, Early DS, Jonnalagadda SS, Edmundowicz SA. Wire-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage by using a modified needle knife and therapeutic echoendoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:688–692. 16564874.Article PubMed
31. Krüger M, Schneider AS, Manns MP, Meier PN. Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts or abscesses after an EUS-guided 1-step procedure for initial access. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:409–416. 16500388.Article PubMed
32. Kahaleh M, Shami VM, Conaway MR, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst: a prospective comparison with conventional endoscopic drainage. Endoscopy 2006;38:355–359. 16680634.Article PubMed PDF
33. Lopes CV, Pesenti C, Bories E, Caillol F, Giovannini M. Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:524–529. 17454865.Article PubMed
34. Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA, Blakely J, Canon CL. Role of EUS in drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections not amenable for endoscopic transmural drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:1107–1119. 17892874.Article PubMed
35. Barthet M, Lamblin G, Gasmi M, Vitton V, Desjeux A, Grimaud JC. Clinical usefulness of a treatment algorithm for pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67:245–252. 18226686.Article PubMed
36. Varadarajulu S, Christein JD, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER, Wilcox CM. Prospective randomized trial comparing EUS and EGD for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:1102–1111. 18640677.Article PubMed
37. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S, et al. Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized trial. JAMA 2012;307:1053–1061. 22416101.Article PubMed
38. Seewald S, Ang TL, Richter H, et al. Long-term results after endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections. Dig Endosc 2012;24:36–41. 22211410.Article PubMed
39. Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Cennamo V, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of infected pancreatic fluid collections with placement of covered self-expanding metal stents: a case series. Endoscopy 2012;44:429–433. 22382852.Article PubMed PDF
40. Itoi T, Binmoeller KF, Shah J, et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel lumenapposing metal stent for endosonography-guided pancreatic pseudocyst and gallbladder drainage (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:870–876. 22301347.Article PubMed
41. Berzosa M, Maheshwari S, Patel KK, Shaib YH. Single-step endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with a single self-expandable metal stent and standard linear echoendoscope. Endoscopy 2012;44:543–547. 22407382.Article PubMed PDF
42. Penn DE, Draganov PV, Wagh MS, Forsmark CE, Gupte AR, Chauhan SS. Prospective evaluation of the use of fully covered self-expanding metal stents for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:679–684. 22732874.Article PubMed
43. Mangiavillano B, Arcidiacono PG, Masci E, et al. Single-step versus two-step endo-ultrasonography-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst. J Dig Dis 2012;13:47–53. 22188916.Article PubMed
44. Weilert F, Binmoeller KF, Shah JN, Bhat YM, Kane S. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with indeterminate adherence using temporary covered metal stents. Endoscopy 2012;44:780–783. 22791588.Article PubMed PDF
45. Gornals JB, De la Serna-Higuera C, Sánchez-Yague A, Loras C, Sánchez-Cantos AM, Pérez-Miranda M. Endosonography-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with a novel lumen-apposing stent. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1428–1434. 23232994.Article PubMed
46. Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah JN, Bhat YM, Kane S. Endosonography-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts using an exchange-free access device: initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1835–1839. 23299130.Article PubMed
47. Andrén-Sandberg A, Dervenis C. Pancreatic pseudocysts in the 21st century. Part II: natural history. JOP 2004;5:64–70. 15007187.PubMed
48. Jacobson BC, Baron TH, Adler DG, et al. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and the management of cystic lesions and inflammatory fluid collections of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:363–370. 15758904.Article PubMed
49. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:2080–2088. 21786063.Article PubMed
50. Seifert H, Dietrich C, Schmitt T, Caspary W, Wehrmann T. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided one-step transmural drainage of cystic abdominal lesions with a large-channel echo endoscope. Endoscopy 2000;32:255–259. 10718392.Article PubMed PDF
51. Seifert H, Faust D, Schmitt T, Dietrich C, Caspary W, Wehrmann T. Transmural drainage of cystic peripancreatic lesions with a new large-channel echo endoscope. Endoscopy 2001;33:1022–1026. 11740644.Article PubMed PDF
52. Giovannini M, Bernardini D, Seitz JF. Cystogastrotomy entirely performed under endosonography guidance for pancreatic pseudocyst: results in six patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:200–203. 9717789.Article PubMed
53. Baron TH. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts, abscesses and organized (walled-off) necrosis. In: Baron TH, Kozarek RA, Carr-Locke DL, editors. ERCP. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008. p. 475–491.
54. Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided cystoduodenostomy with a therapeutic ultrasound endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:614–617. 8934175.Article PubMed
55. Binmoeller KF, Soehendra N. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1995;5:805–816. 8535629.Article PubMed
56. Puri R, Mishra SR, Thandassery RB, Sud R, Eloubeidi MA. Outcome and complications of endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage using combined endoprosthesis and naso-cystic drain. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:722–727. 22313377.Article PubMed
57. Zheng M, Qin M. Endoscopic ultrasound guided transgastric stenting for the treatment of traumatic pancreatic pseudocyst. Hepatogastroenterology 2011;58:1106–1109. 21937358.Article PubMed
58. Varadarajulu S, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Frequency of complications during EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections in 148 consecutive patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:1504–1508. 21575060.Article PubMed
59. Will U, Wanzar C, Gerlach R, Meyer F. Interventional ultrasound-guided procedures in pancreatic pseudocysts, abscesses and infected necroses: treatment algorithm in a large single-center study. Ultraschall Med 2011;32:176–183. 21259182.Article PubMed
60. Talreja JP, Shami VM, Ku J, Morris TD, Ellen K, Kahaleh M. Transenteric drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections with fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:1199–1203. 19028232.Article PubMed
61. Antillon MR, Bechtold ML, Bartalos CR, Marshall JB. Transgastric endoscopic necrosectomy with temporary metallic esophageal stent placement for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:178–180. 18582877.Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Endoscopic ultrasound view of the needle puncture.

Fig. 2

Fluoroscopic view of guidewire placed through the stomach wall.

Fig. 3

Fluoroscopic view of guidewire within the pancreatic fluid collection.

Fig. 4

Fluoroscopic view of balloon dilation of the tract.

Fig. 5

Endoscopic view of balloon dilation of the tract.

Fig. 6

Endoscopic view of deployed metal stent.

Fig. 7

Fluoroscopic view of the pigtails placed within the metal stent.

Table 1

Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage

^a)Long-term success rate 58/80 (72.5%).

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Current Utility of Transgastric Percutaneous Drainage for the Management of Pancreatitis-Related Retrogastric Walled-Off Necrotic Collections: A Prospective Observational Study
Sarthak Agrawal, Asmita Arya, Avinash D Gautam, Rajanikant R Yadav, Ashish Singh, Deb Boruah, Samir Mohindra, Archana Gupta, Anshu Srivastava, Mohan Gurjar, Rajneesh K Singh, Rahul Rahul
Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis from a Chinese multiple disciplinary team expert panel
Huiyun Zhu, Yiqi Du, Kaixuan Wang, Zhaoshen Li, Zhendong Jin
Endoscopic Ultrasound.2024; 13(4): 205. CrossRef
Pancreatic Walled-Off Necrosis: Cross-Sectional Imaging Depiction of Debris Predicts the Success of Endoscopic Drainage Using Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents
Zhenteng Li, Ali Siddiqui, Gurshawn Singh, Ellen Redstone, Jonathan Weinstein, Donald G. Mitchell
Digestive Diseases.2024; 42(4): 380. CrossRef
Electrocautery-enhanced Lumen-apposing Metal Stents in the Management of Symptomatic Pancreatic Fluid Collections
Jose Nieto, Parit Mekaroonkamol, Raj Shah, Mouen A. Khashab, David E. Loren, Irving Waxman, Steven A. Edmundowicz, Field F. Willingham
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2023; 57(2): 218. CrossRef
EUS-guided transluminal drainage using lumen-apposing metal stents with or without coaxial plastic stents for treatment of walled-off necrotizing pancreatitis: a prospective bicentric randomized controlled trial
Petr Vanek, Premysl Falt, Petr Vitek, Vincent Zoundjiekpon, Monika Horinkova, Jana Zapletalova, Martin Lovecek, Ondrej Urban
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2023; 97(6): 1070. CrossRef
Endoscopic transgastric fenestration versus percutaneous drainage for management of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections adjacent to gastric wall (with video)
Hong-Mei Zhang, Hui-Ting Ke, Md Robin Ahmed, Ya-Juan Li, Ghulam Nabi, Mu-Han Li, Ji-Yu Zhang, Dan Liu, Li-Xia Zhao, Bing-Rong Liu
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 29(40): 5557. CrossRef
Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound drainage for the management of fluid collections after pancreas surgery
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
Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(6): 3708. CrossRef
Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Endoscopic Management of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections
Chi Hyuk Oh, Tae Jun Song, Jun Kyu Lee, Jin-Seok Park, Jae Min Lee, Jun Hyuk Son, Dong Kee Jang, Miyoung Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon, In Seok Lee, Soo Teik Lee, Ho Soon Choi, Ho Gak Kim, Hoon Jai Chun, Chan Guk Park, Joo Young Cho
The Korean Journal of Pancreas and Biliary Tract.2022; 27(2): 61. CrossRef
Endosonography-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: comparative outcomes by stent type
Ahmed Kayal, Niloofar Taghizadeh, Takuya Ishikawa, Emmanuel Gonzalez-Moreno, Sydney Bass, Martin J. Cole, Steven J. Heitman, Rachid Mohamed, Christian Turbide, Yen-I Chen, Nauzer Forbes
Surgical Endoscopy.2021; 35(6): 2698. CrossRef
Endoscopy-guided percutaneous stapled pancreatic cystgastrostomy and necrosectomy
Harshit S. Khara, Jon D. Gabrielsen, David L. Diehl, Ryan D. Horsley
Endoscopy.2021; 53(05): E199. CrossRef
A novel value-based scoring system for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a single-centre comparative study of plastic and lumen-apposing metal stents (NOVA study)
Vikrant Parihar, Yasir Basir, Deirdre Nally, Gregory Mellotte, Thilagraj Manoharan, Caroline Walker, P.F. Ridgway, K.C. Conlon, Niall Breslin, Gavin C. Harewood, Barbara M. Ryan
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2021; 32(2): 157. CrossRef
Coaxial Double-Pigtail Stent Placement: A Simple Solution to Decrease Bleeding Risk Associated With Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent?
Shehroz Aslam, Zaid Ansari, Mustafa Alani, Indu Srinivasan, Keng-Yu Chuang
Cureus.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection, using a modified technique of cystotome alone without a FNA needle
Praveer Rai, KC Harish, Abdul Majeed, Amit Goel
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 27(5): 283. CrossRef
Drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using a lumen‐apposing metal stent with an electrocautery‐enhanced delivery system
Saad Khan, Sujievvan Chandran, Jerry Chin, Shwan Karim, Dileep Mangira, Mohamad Nasr, Goktug Ermerak, Andrew Trinh, Christopher Y H Kia, Thomas Mules, Mohammadali Zad, Tiing Leong Ang, Estella Johns, Derrick Tee, Abha Kaul, Thawee Ratanachu‐Ek, Jirat Jira
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2021; 36(12): 3395. CrossRef
Transduodenal drainage of hard-to-reach pancreatic pseudocyst under endosonography control
S. V. Dzhantukhanova, Yu. G. Starkov, R. D. Zamolodchikov, A. A. Zvereva, V. S. Shirokov, I. S. Gruzdev
Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology.2021; 1(5): 97. CrossRef
Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Endoscopic Management of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections
Chi Hyuk Oh, Jun Kyu Lee, Tae Jun Song, Jin-Seok Park, Jae Min Lee, Jun Hyuk Son, Dong Kee Jang, Miyoung Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon, In Seok Lee, Soo Teik Lee, Ho Soon Choi, Ho Gak Kim, Hoon Jai Chun, Chan Guk Park, Joo Young Cho
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(4): 505. CrossRef
Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Endoscopic Management of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections
Chi Hyuk Oh, Tae Jun Song, Jun Kyu Lee, Jin-Seok Park, Jae Min Lee, Jun Hyuk Son, Dong Kee Jang, Miyoung Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon, In Seok Lee, Soo Teik Lee, Ho Soon Choi, Ho Gak Kim, Hoon Jai Chun, Chan Guk Park, Joo Young Cho
Gut and Liver.2021; 15(5): 677. CrossRef
Multivariate analysis of the factors affecting the prognosis of walled-off pancreatic necrosis after endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage
Jintao Guo, Bowen Duan, Siyu Sun, Sheng Wang, Xiang Liu, Nan Ge, Wen Liu, Shupeng Wang, Jinlong Hu
Surgical Endoscopy.2020; 34(3): 1177. CrossRef
Advancements in the endoscopic treatment of pancreatic fluid collections
Jing Li, Yang Yu, Peng Li, Shu‐Tian Zhang
Chronic Diseases and Translational Medicine.2020; 6(3): 158. CrossRef
Are Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents More Effective Than Plastic Stents for the Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Shali Tan, Chunyu Zhong, Yutang Ren, Xujuan Luo, Jin Xu, Yan Peng, Xiangsheng Fu, Xiaowei Tang
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
The role of solid debris in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided drainage of walled‐off necrosis: A large cohort study
Huiyun Zhu, Pei Xie, Yuxin Wang, Zhendong Jin, Zhaoshen Li, Yiqi Du
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2020; 35(12): 2103. CrossRef
Outcomes of a single-step endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections using an electrocautery-enhanced coaxial lumen-apposing, self-expanding metal stent with and without fluoroscopy
Babatunde Olaiya, Parit Mekaroonkamol, Bai-Wen Li, Julia Massaad, Cicily T Vachaparambil, Jennifer Xu, Vladamir Lamm, Hui Luo, Shan-Shan Shen, Hui-Min Chen, Steve Keilin, Field F Willingham, Qiang Cai
Gastroenterology Report.2020; 8(6): 425. CrossRef
Recent development of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections
Dong Kee Jang, Jun Kyu Lee
International Journal of Gastrointestinal Intervention.2020; 9(4): 160. CrossRef
The results of endosonography-assisted internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst
Yu. G. Starkov, R. D. Zamolodchikov, S. V. Dzhantukhanova, M. I. Vyborniy, K. V. Lukich, A. S. Ibragimov, I. M. Goncharov, V. Yu. Lavrentyeva
Annaly khirurgicheskoy gepatologii = Annals of HPB surgery.2019; 24(1): 43. CrossRef
A novel self-expanding biflanged metal stent vs tubular metal stent for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst
Yao Yao, Dingguo Zhang, Jiefang Guo, Ke Qi, Feng Li, Jianwei Zhu, Dong Wang, Jie Chen, Can Xu, Luowei Wang, Kaixuan Wang, Zhendong Jin, Zhaoshen Li
Medicine.2019; 98(3): e14179. CrossRef
Spontaneous Closure of a Large Transmural Gastric Defect After Removal of a Migrated AXIOS Stent
Ali Alshati, Indu Srinivasan, Keng-Yu Chuang
ACG Case Reports Journal.2019; 6(3): e00033. CrossRef
Stent migration following treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst by cyst gastrostomy
Steven Smith, Patrick Ramirez, Alisha Hinds, Raymond Duggan, Jonathan Ramirez
Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2019; 32(3): 411. CrossRef
Advanced Endoscopic Procedures: An Update for Radiologists
Preethi Guniganti, Andrea S. Kierans
American Journal of Roentgenology.2019; 213(2): 332. CrossRef
EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents and plastic double-pigtail stents: comparison of efficacy and adverse event rates
Gabriel D. Lang, Cassandra Fritz, Trisha Bhat, Koushik K. Das, Faris M. Murad, Dayna S. Early, Steven A. Edmundowicz, Vladimir M. Kushnir, Daniel K. Mullady
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2018; 87(1): 150. CrossRef
Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Are They Better Than Plastic Stents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Tariq Hammad, Muhammad Ali Khan, Yaseen Alastal, Wade Lee, Ali Nawras, Mohammad Kashif Ismail, Michel Kahaleh
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2018; 63(2): 289. CrossRef
Surgical Management of Pancreatic Pseudocysts
Lea Matsuoka, Sophoclis P. Alexopoulos
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America.2018; 28(2): 131. CrossRef
EUS-Guided Transluminal Interventions
Uzma D. Siddiqui, Michael J. Levy
Gastroenterology.2018; 154(7): 1911. CrossRef
Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents with and without simultaneous double-pigtail plastic stents for draining pancreatic pseudocyst
Murad Aburajab, Zachary Smith, Abdul Khan, Kulwinder Dua
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2018; 87(5): 1248. CrossRef
Novel lumen‐apposing metal stent for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: An Italian multicentre experience
Maria Chiara Petrone, Livia Archibugi, Edoardo Forti, Rita Conigliaro, Roberto Di Mitri, Ilaria Tarantino, Carlo Fabbri, Alberto Larghi, Sabrina Gloria Giulia Testoni, Massimiliano Mutignani, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
United European Gastroenterology Journal.2018; 6(9): 1363. CrossRef
Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections
Seung Bae Yoon, Jae Hyuck Chang, In Seok Lee
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 72(3): 97. CrossRef
Algorithm for the multidisciplinary management of hemorrhage in EUS-guided drainage for pancreatic fluid collections
Tian-An Jiang, Li-Ting Xie
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2018; 6(10): 308. CrossRef
Endoscopic management of complications of acute pancreatitis: an update on the field
Ali Aghdassi, Peter Simon, Tilman Pickartz, Christoph Budde, Mariya E. Skube, Markus. M. Lerch
Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2018; 12(12): 1207. CrossRef
Fully covered self-expanding metal stents versus lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent versus plastic stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: clinical outcomes and success
Ali A. Siddiqui, Thomas E. Kowalski, David E. Loren, Ammara Khalid, Ayesha Soomro, Syed M. Mazhar, Laura Isby, Michel Kahaleh, Kunal Karia, Joseph Yoo, Andrew Ofosu, Beverly Ng, Reem Z. Sharaiha
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2017; 85(4): 758. CrossRef
Prospective evaluation of a new biflanged metal stent for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (with videos)
Shuntaro Mukai, Takayoshi Tsuchiya, Takao Itoi, Shujiro Tsuji, Reina Tanaka, Ryosuke Tonozuka, Yuichi Nagakawa, Kazuhiko Kasuya, Masaaki Shimatani, Atsushi Sofuni
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2017; 86(1): 203. CrossRef
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage with lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic double-pigtail stents: A multifactorial analysis
Nan Ge, Jinlong Hu, Siyu Sun, Enqiang Linghu, Zhendong Jin, Zhaoshen Li
Journal of Translational Internal Medicine.2017; 5(4): 213. CrossRef
Rare Esophageal Migration of AXIOS Stent Used for Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis Drainage
Yousef Abdel-Aziz, Anas Renno, Tariq Hammad, Ali Nawras
ACG Case Reports Journal.2017; 4(1): e73. CrossRef
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst after gastrogastric anastomosis in patient with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: The dream becomes reality!
Mariano Sica, Massimiliano Mutignani, Tringali Alberto, Raffaele Manta
Endoscopic Ultrasound.2017; 6(3): 215. CrossRef
EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and necrosis by using a novel lumen-apposing stent: a large retrospective, multicenter U.S. experience (with videos)
Ali A. Siddiqui, Douglas G. Adler, Jose Nieto, Janak N. Shah, Kenneth F. Binmoeller, Steve Kane, Linda Yan, Sobia N. Laique, Thomas Kowalski, David E. Loren, Linda Jo Taylor, Satish Munigala, Yasser M. Bhat
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2016; 83(4): 699. CrossRef
Risk factors for infection after endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of specific types of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (with video)
Jintao Guo, Linlin Feng, Siyu Sun, Nan Ge, Xiang Liu, Sheng Wang, Guoxin Wang, Beibei Sun
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(7): 3114. CrossRef
Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Can they be successfully combined?
Joan B. Gornals, José Miguel Esteban, Carlos Guarner-Argente, Carlos Marra-Lopez, Alejandro Repiso, Oriol Sendino, Carme Loras
Gastroenterología y Hepatología.2016; 39(9): 627. CrossRef
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage without Fluoroscopic Guidance for Extraluminal Complicated Cysts
Hyeong Seok Nam, Hyung Wook Kim, Dae Hwan Kang, Cheol Woong Choi, Su Bum Park, Su Jin Kim, Dae Gon Ryu, Joon Ho Jeon
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2016; 2016: 1. CrossRef
Evaluation of the AXIOS stent for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections
Eduardo Rodrigues-Pinto, Todd H. Baron
Expert Review of Medical Devices.2016; 13(9): 793. CrossRef
Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Can they be successfully combined?
Joan B. Gornals, José Miguel Esteban, Carlos Guarner-Argente, Carlos Marra-Lopez, Alejandro Repiso, Oriol Sendino, Carme Loras
Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition).2016; 39(9): 627. CrossRef
Metal versus plastic for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage: clinical outcomes and success
Reem Z. Sharaiha, Ersilia M. DeFilippis, Prashant Kedia, Monica Gaidhane, Christine Boumitri, Huei-Wen Lim, Eugene Han, Harkarit Singh, Saad S. Ghumman, Thomas Kowalski, David Loren, Michel Kahaleh, Ali Siddiqui
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2015; 82(5): 822. CrossRef
Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections With Lumen-Apposing Covered Self-Expanding Metal Stents
Raj J. Shah, Janak N. Shah, Irving Waxman, Thomas E. Kowalski, Andres Sanchez-Yague, Jose Nieto, Brian C. Brauer, Monica Gaidhane, Michel Kahaleh
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2015; 13(4): 747. CrossRef
Negative predictive value of drain amylase concentration for development of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy
Piotr Zelga, Jason M. Ali, Rebecca Brais, Simon J.F. Harper, Siong-Seng Liau, Emmanuel L. Huguet, Neville V. Jamieson, Raaj K. Praseedom, Asif Jah
Pancreatology.2015; 15(2): 179. CrossRef
EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using a novel lumen-apposing metal stent on an electrocautery-enhanced delivery system: a large retrospective study (with video)
Emanuele Rinninella, Rastislav Kunda, Markus Dollhopf, Andres Sanchez-Yague, Uwe Will, Ilaria Tarantino, Joan Gornals Soler, Sebastian Ullrich, Alexander Meining, Josè Miguel Esteban, Thomas Enz, Geoffroy Vanbiervliet, Frank Vleggaar, Fabia Attili, Albert
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2015; 82(6): 1039. CrossRef
Management of pancreatic collections with a novel endoscopically placed fully covered self-expandable metal stent: a national experience (with videos)
Sujievvan Chandran, Marios Efthymiou, Arthur Kaffes, John Wei Chen, Vu Kwan, Michael Murray, David Williams, Nam Quoc Nguyen, William Tam, Christine Welch, Andre Chong, Saurabh Gupta, Ben Devereaux, Peter Tagkalidis, Frank Parker, Rhys Vaughan
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2015; 81(1): 127. CrossRef
Internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts
R. D. Zamolodchikov, E. N. Solodinina, Yu. G. Starkov
Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova.2015; (4): 68. CrossRef
Therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreaticobiliary disease: A comprehensive review
Fan-Sheng Meng
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2015; 21(46): 12996. CrossRef
Endoscopic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic disease
Erik-Jan Wamsteker
Current Opinion in Gastroenterology.2014; 30(5): 524. CrossRef
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Transluminal Drainage for Peripancreatic Fluid Collections: Where Are We Now?
Hiroshi Kawakami, Takao Itoi, Naoya Sakamoto
Gut and Liver.2014; 8(4): 341. CrossRef
Endoscopic Drainage of Pseudocysts
Tae Jun Song, Sang Soo Lee
Clinical Endoscopy.2014; 47(3): 222. CrossRef
A case report on the usefulness of early endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transgastric internal stenting for severe blunt pancreatic trauma
Satoshi Iino, Masahiko Sakoda, Koji Minami, Kiyotsugu Hiwatashi, Hiroshi Kurahara, Yuko Mataki, Kosei Maemura, Hiroyuki Shinchi, Shinichi Ueno, Dai Imanaka, Shinichi Hashimoto, Masatsugu Numata, Akio Ido, Kentarou Nakamura, Keiji Yamaguchi, Tomotsugu Yasu
Injury Extra.2014; 45(9): 65. CrossRef
Management of pancreatic ductal leaks and fistulae
Michael Larsen, Richard Kozarek
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2014; 29(7): 1360. CrossRef
Evidence-Based Management of Necrotizing Pancreatitis
Diana A. Whitehead, Timothy B. Gardner
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology.2014; 12(3): 322. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format: