Long-term results of endoscopic stent in the management of blunt major pancreatic duct injury

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in pancreatic trauma: need to break the mental barrier

Pancreatic injury has a high morbidity and mortality. The integrity of the main pancreatic duct is the most important determinant of prognosis. Serum amylase, peritoneal lavage and computed tomography of the abdomen can assist with diagnosis but endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is the most accurate investigation for diagnosing the site and extent of ductal disruption. However, it is invasive and can be associated with significant complications. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and secretin-enhanced MRCP probably parallel ERP in delineating pancreatic ductal injuries. They can also delineate the duct upstream to complete disruption, an area not visualized on ERP. In relation to therapy, endoscopic transpapillary drainage has been successfully used to heal duct disruptions in the early phase of pancreatic trauma and, in the delayed phase, to treat the complications of pancreatic duct injuries such as pseudocysts and pancreatic fistulae. Transpapillary drainage is especially effective in patients who have partial pancreatic duct disruption that can be bridged. Endoscopic transmural drainage has also been successfully used to treat post-traumatic pancreatic pseudocysts. Further large, prospective and randomized studies are required to adjudge the efficacy and long-term safety of pancreatic duct drainage in the treatment of post-traumatic pancreatic duct injuries.

Early management of traumatic pancreatic transection by spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Pancreatic trauma is a common cause of acute pancreatitis in children and is often treated by conservative measures alone. Conservative measures are more likely to fail when there is complete pancreatic duct disruption. We report a case of complete transaction of the pancreatic neck following blunt trauma in a 14-year-old boy. Complete duct disruption was confirmed by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. The patient was successfully managed by a laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy and recovered quickly without complications. The merit of a laparoscopic approach to severe pancreatic injury in children is discussed.

Pancreatic injury successfully treated with endoscopic stenting for major pancreatic duct disruption

We present a 43-year-old Japanese man with major pancreatic duct disruption caused by blunt pancreatic head damage. Computed tomography (CT) revealed pancreatic head injury, and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography showed pancreatic duct disruption at the injury site along with contrast media leakage. We placed a pancreatic stent for 3 months, after which closure of the pancreatic duct fistula was confirmed. CT on the 9th hospital day showed acute pancreatic fluid collections, but these had disappeared at the 3 month follow-up CT. The patient has remained asymptomatic at follow-up for 3 years.

Pancreatic injury in children: good outcome of nonoperative treatment

PURPOSE

Treatment of blunt injury of the pancreas in children remains controversial. Some prefer nonoperative treatment, whereas others prefer operative management in selected cases. This report reviews the treatment of patients with blunt pancreatic trauma admitted to a level I pediatric trauma center in The Netherlands.

METHODS

Medical records of all children less than 15 years with blunt pancreatic trauma admitted to the University Medical Center St Radboud in the period 1975 to 2003 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four children were included, age 3 to 14 years. Most injuries were because of bicycle accidents (58%). On admission, amylase was raised in 90% of the patients. Five patients had pancreatic duct injuries identified by imaging (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography was used once, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography twice) or at surgery. Thirty-one children were initially managed nonoperatively. Pancreatic surgery was performed in 3 children (1 Roux-Y, 2 drainage only). Mean hospital stay was 29 days in the operative group and 24 days in the nonoperative group. Fluid collections developed in 2 operated patients. Both resolved spontaneously. In 14 of the 31 nonoperated patients, a pseudocyst developed. Only 6 of these needed secondary intervention. Of these, 3 were drained percutaneously. There was no mortality and no long-term morbidity in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative management of pancreatic injury in children has good clinical outcome. Only 10% need secondary surgery. In 50%, pseudocysts develop of which half can be managed nonoperatively. The reliability of computed tomographic scan grading is of limited value to decide whether to operate primarily. There is little to gain with ERCP and stenting. The place of MRCP as a noninvasive diagnostic tool remains to be determined.

The management of pancreatic trauma in the modern era

Pancreatic trauma presents challenging diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas to trauma surgeons. Injuries to the pancreas have been associated with reported morbidity rates approaching 45%. If treatment is delayed, these rates may increase to 60%. The integrity of the main pancreatic duct is the most important determinant of outcome after injury to the pancreas. Undiagnosed ductal disruptions produce secondary infections, fistulas, fluid collections, and prolonged stays in the intensive care unit and hospital. This article analyzes the epidemiology, diagnostic approaches, options for nonoperative and operative management, and outcome after blunt and penetrating pancreatic trauma.

Pancreatico-enterostomy for isolated main pancreatic duct disruption

BACKGROUND

We present our experiences with isolated main pancreatic duct injuries due to blunt trauma, managed by pancreatico-enterostomies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of seven patients, one female and six males who presented between 1997 and 2005, whose ages ranged from 10 to 54 years. Three were due to motor vehicle accidents, two due to blunt assault, one pedestrian vehicle accident and one go-cart accident. Four presented acutely and were managed surgically within 24h; two were delayed by 3 days and one by 14 days. Six had pre-operative CT scans; one had an ERCP confirming ductal transection by contrast extravasation.

RESULTS

Five pancreatico-gastrostomies and two pancreatico-jejenostomies were performed. Three patients complicated; one by biliary cutaneous fistula after a left hepatic segmentectomy, one with an amylase-rich low output fistula and one with haematemesis, for which no cause could be identified. All complications were managed conservatively. Post-operative follow-up ranged between 4 and 20 weeks. No deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

In a stable patient, pancreatico-enterostomy for an isolated main pancreatic duct injury appears to be a viable option and simpler to perform than distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation. Furthermore, it has the advantage of pancreatic tissue and spleen preservation and a low fistula rate. The authors believe pancreatico-gastrostomy to be the easier to perform.

Diagnosis and management of blunt abdominal solid organ injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperative management of solid organ injuries has become the standard of care for over 25 years. Benefits of this practice include reduced operative complications, reduced transfusions, lower infectious morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Patients eligible for this management practice include those who are hemodynamically stable and who do not have associated injuries that require celiotomy. Operative interventions need to occur expeditiously in hemodynamically unstable patients with hepatic and splenic injuries.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature has focused on the continued success with nonoperative management of blunt solid organ injuries. The role of angioembolization for both splenic and hepatic injuries continues to be explored. Other authors are also questioning the appropriateness of clinical decisions for selection of hemodynamically unstable patients for nonoperative management. Operative management of blunt pancreatic trauma remains the rule.

SUMMARY

Nonoperative management of solid organ injuries continues to have high success rates in the appropriate patient population. Minimally invasive adjuncts have a definite role in management of this patient population. Pancreatic trauma remains an operative injury. Surgeons must, however, temper the enthusiasm for nonoperative management of patients with solid organ injury, and exclude from this management scheme patients who would best be treated with surgery.

Nonoperative Management of Pancreato-Duodenal Injuries

Following injuries to the pancreas and duodenum (PDI) patients often present in extremis and undergo immediate laparotomy for hemodynamic instability and peritoneal signs. Nonoperative management (NOM) may be offered in selected patients with lowgrade injuries. Precise mapping of the injury, most commonly by computed tomography, is a prerequisite for NOM because clinical symptomatology can be variable and misleading. Additionally, delaying the treatment of PDI that should be corrected surgically may lead to significant complications. Therefore, NOM of PDI presents unique challenges, and the decision-making is not as straightforward as it is with NOM of other solid abdominal organs. Essentially, only duodenal hematomas without fullthickness wall perforation (Grade I and selected II) and pancreatic trauma without major duct involvement (Grade I and selected II) could be offered NOM. In these cases, the reported success rates vary from 74 to 95%. There are also a few severe pancreatic injuries that can be managed by stents with adequate reconstitution of the major pancreatic duct integrity and resolution of symptoms and without the need for operative management. Intensive monitoring and follow-up by clinical examination and repeat CT imaging is essential in these patients, as the risk of complications, and particularly a pseudocyst is high.

Diagnosis and management of blunt pancreatic ductal injury in the era of high-resolution computed axial tomography

BACKGROUND

Blunt pancreatic ductal injury is an uncommon but potentially morbid injury that can be difficult to diagnose and manage. Computed axial tomography (CAT) scan has historically been unreliable for the detection of ductal injury, but the advent of high-resolution CAT should improve diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

From our prospectively maintained trauma registry, consecutive patients who had a diagnosis of blunt pancreatic injury with or without a subsequent laparotomy during the time period from January 1995 through December 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Pancreatic ductal injury was treated exclusively with distal pancreatic resection (DPR) without adjunctive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.

RESULTS

Of 50 patients with blunt pancreatic injury, 33 patients had both preoperative CAT scan and laparotomy. Although the CAT scan interpretation and operative findings corresponded precisely for all pancreatic injuries in only 55% of cases, CAT scan was 91% sensitive and 91% specific for identifying pancreatic ductal injury. Eleven patients with confirmed pancreatic ductal injury underwent DPR. There were no postoperative pancreas-related deaths and only 1 pancreas-related complication among survivors, a patient with a low-output pancreatic fistula that resolved after 5 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Blunt pancreatic ductal injury may be accurately diagnosed with preoperative CAT scan, without adjunctive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and is effectively and safely treated with DPR.

Blunt pancreatic trauma and pseudocyst: management of major pancreatic duct injury

When there is no major pancreatic duct injury or the injury involves only the distal duct, percutaneous drainage should be considered the primary therapeutic procedure for traumatic pancreatic pseudocyst. If the pseudocyst does not then resolve, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography should be performed to prove proximal duct injury. When the major pancreatic duct is disrupted but not obstructed, pancreatic duct stenting may avert surgical resection. If the major duct is obstructed, surgical resection is required.