Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound drainage for the management of fluid collections after pancreas surgery

Updates on therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiple endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided therapeutic interventions have been developed for the management of benign and malignant pancreaticobiliary and gastrointestinal luminal pathology. Recent high-quality evidence is increasingly validating these interventions and positioning them within evidence-based therapeutic algorithms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Here we review therapeutic EUS-guided interventions including pancreatic fluid collection drainage, gastroenterostomy, biliary drainage, pancreatic duct drainage and gallbladder drainage. The most up-to-date high-quality evidence supporting these interventions is presented including comparative data with other conventional treatment options. Newer emerging interventions such as tumor ablation are also reviewed. Current controversies and future avenues for research are discussed. The key role of EUS-guided interventions in managing pancreaticobiliary pathology in patients with a surgically altered anatomy is highlighted.

SUMMARY

Multiple EUS therapeutic interventions have evolved from experimental or rescue options to now well established first- and second-line interventions over other endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical alternatives with the support of high-quality data. Further research is needed to better optimize patient selection and guide long term postintervention follow-up.

Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Interventions

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) encompasses an array of procedures to manage pancreaticobiliary and luminal gastrointestinal disorders. Therapeutic EUS procedures include EUS-guided rendezvous of the pancreatic and biliary ducts, as well as direct drainage of the bile duct, pancreatic duct, and gallbladder, drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, and luminal anastomosis creation. These procedures have a range of required equipment, approaches, clinical outcomes, and adverse events dependent on both procedure-related and patient-related factors. In expert hands, these procedures provide patients with less invasive options and can achieve excellent clinical outcomes.

Drainage for fluid collections post pancreatic surgery and acute pancreatitis: similar but different?

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are common adverse events that occur after pancreatic surgery. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) is a first-line treatment, similar to that for pancreatic fluid collection (PFCs) after acute pancreatitis. However, some POPFs do not develop fluid collections depending on the presence or location of the surgical drain, whereas others develop fluid collections, such as postoperative fluid collections (POPFCs). Although POPFCs are similar to PFCs, the strategy and modality for POPF management need to be modified according to the presence of fluid collections, surgical drains, and surgical type. As discussed for PFCs, the indications, timing, and selection of interventions or stents for EUS-D have not been fully elucidated for POPFs. In this review, we discuss the management of POPFs and POPFCs in comparison with PFCs due to acute pancreatitis and summarize the topics that should be addressed in future studies.

The contribution of EUS to the management of endoscopic and surgical complications

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) stands as a remarkable innovation in the realm of gastroenterology and its allied disciplines. EUS has evolved to such an extent that it now assumes a pivotal role in both diagnosis and therapeutics. In addition, it has developed as a tool which is also capable of addressing complications arising from endoscopic and surgical procedures. This minimally invasive technique combines endoscopy with high-frequency ultrasound, facilitating, high-resolution images of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures. Complications within the gastrointestinal tract, whether stemming from endoscopic or surgical procedures, frequently arise due to disruption in the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract wall. While these complications are usually promptly detected, there are instances where their onset is delayed. EUS plays a dual role in the management of these complications. Firstly, in its ability to assess and increasingly to definitively manage complications through drainage procedures. It is increasingly employed to manage post-surgical collections, abscesses biliary strictures and bleeding. Its high-resolution imaging capability allows precise real-time visualisation of these complications.

Endoscopic main duct stenting in refractory postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy - a friend or a foe?

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant (CR) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common. Endoscopic treatment (ET) has only scarcely been explored. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for CR POPF after DP and the efficacy of ET in adjunct to standard therapy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients without previous pancreatic surgery who underwent DP between 2011 and 2020 were evaluated, analyzing risk factors for CR POPF. The choice and performance of ET, main pancreatic duct (MPD) stenting, was not standardized. Healing time and complications after ET were registered.

RESULTS

406 patients underwent DP, CR POPF occurred in 29.6%. ET was performed in 17 patients 27 days (median) after index surgery. Risk for CR POPF was increased in ASA-PS 1-2 patients, MPD ≤ 3 mm, procedure time ≥ 3 h, and CRP ≥ 180 on postoperative day 3. POPF resolved with standard treatment after 32 days and 59 days in the ET group (p < 0.001). There was one mortality in the ET-group (not procedure related). Mild post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in three patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CR POPF is common after DP. Long operating time, a narrow MPD, low ASA score, and high postoperative CRP were risk factors for CR POPF. ET was not beneficial but proper evaluation was not possible due to few patients and non-standardized treatment. Complications after ET appeared mild.

Early versus delayed EUS-guided drainage for postoperative pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage for POPFCs is increasingly reported, but its appropriate timing has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes of POPFCs according to the timing of EUS-guided drainage.

METHODS

Using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until December 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. We pooled data on AEs, mortality, and technical and clinical success rates, using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

From 1415 papers identified in the initial literature search, we identified 6 retrospective studies, including 128 and 107 patients undergoing early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. The threshold of early and delayed drainage ranged from 14 to 30 days. Distal pancreatectomy was the major cause of POPFCs, ranging from 44 to 100%. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for AEs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.64, P = 0.55) comparing early to delayed drainage. There was no procedure-related mortality. Technical success was achieved in all cases and a pooled OR of clinical success was 0.60 (95% CI 0.20-1.83, P = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

POPFCs can be managed by early EUS-guided drainage without an increase in AEs.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.

METHODS

A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.

CONCLUSIONS

ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.

Modified Appleby procedure for locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma: A primer for the radiologist

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most prevalent pancreatic neoplasm accounting for more than 90% of pancreatic malignancies. Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy remains the only available curative strategy for patients with PDAC. Despite improvements in both chemotherapy regimen and surgical care, body/neck PDAC still conveys a poor prognosis because of the vicinity of major vascular structures, including celiac trunk, which favors insidious disease spread at the time of diagnosis. Body/neck PDAC involving the celiac trunk is considered locally advanced PDAC in most guidelines and therefore not eligible for upfront resection. However, a more aggressive surgical approach (i.e., distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and en-bloc celiac trunk resection [DP-CAR]) was recently proposed to offer hope for cure in selected patients with locally advanced body/neck PDAC responsive to induction therapy at the cost of higher morbidity. The so-called "modified Appleby procedure" is highly demanding and requires optimal preoperative staging as well as appropriate patient preparation for surgery (i.e., preoperative arterial embolization). Herein, we review current evidence regarding DP-CAR indications and outcomes as well as the critical role of diagnostic and interventional radiology in patient preparation before DP-CAR, and early identification and management of DP-CAR complications.

Internal drainage for interdisciplinary management of anastomotic leakage after pancreaticogastrostomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) may occur after pancreatic head resection, also in the setting of pancreato-gastric reconstruction. For adequate complication management, a variety of non-standardized treatments are available. Still, data on clinical evaluation of endoscopic methods remain scarce. Based on our interdisciplinary experience on endoscopic treatment of retro-gastric fluid collections after left-sided pancreatectomies, we developed an innovative endoscopic concept with internal peri-anastomotic stent placement for patients with anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collection.

METHODS

Over the period of 6 years (2015-2020) we retrospectively evaluated 531 patients after pancreatic head resections at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin. Of these, 403 received reconstruction via pancreatogastrostomy. We identified 110 patients (27.3%) with anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collection and could define four treatment groups which received either conservative treatment (C), percutaneous drainage (PD), endoscopic drainage (ED), and/or re-operation (OP). Patients were grouped in a step-up approach for descriptive analyses and in a stratified, decision-based algorithm for comparative analyses. The study's primary endpoints were hospitalization (length of hospital stay) and clinical success (treatment success rate, primary/secondary resolution).

RESULTS

We characterized an institutional, post-operative cohort with heterogenous complication management following pancreato-gastric reconstruction. The majority of patients needed interventional treatments (n = 92, 83.6%). Of these, close to one-third (n = 32, 29.1%) were treated with endoscopy-guided, peri-anastomotic pigtail stents for internal drainage as either primary, secondary and/or tertiary treatment modality. Following a decision-based algorithm, we could discriminate superior primary-(77,8% vs 53.7%) and secondary success rates (85.7% vs 68.4%) as well as earlier primary resolutions (11.4 days, 95%CI (5.75-17.13) vs 37.4 days, 95%CI (27.2-47.5)] in patients receiving an endoscopic compared to percutaneous management.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the importance of endoscopy-guided approaches for adequate treatment of anastomotic leakage and/or peri-anastomotic fluid collections after pancreatoduodenectomy. We herein report a novel, interdisciplinary concept for internal drainage in the setting of pancreato-gastric reconstruction.

Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: How We Do It

(1) Background: This study's goals were to investigate possible risk factors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C according to the updated definitions of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery and to analyze possible treatment strategies; (2) Methods: Between 2017 and 2021, 200 patients were analyzed regarding the development of POPF grade B/C with an emphasis on postoperative outcome and treatment strategies; (3) Results: POPF grade B/C was observed in 39 patients (19.5%). These patients were younger, mainly male, had fewer comorbidities and showed a higher body mass index. Also, they had lower CA-19 levels, a smaller tumor size and softer pancreatic parenchyma. They experienced a worse outcome without affecting the overall mortality rate (10% vs. 6%, p = 0.481), however, this lead to a prolonged postoperative stay (28 (32-36) d vs. 20 (15-28) d, p ≤ 0.001). The majority of patients with POPF grade B/C were able to receive conservative treatment, followed by drainage placement, endoscopic vacuum-assisted therapy (EVT) and surgery. Conservative treatment resulted in a shorter length of the postoperative stay (24 (22-28) d vs. 34 (26-43) d, p = 0.012); (4) Conclusions: Patients developing POPF grade B/C had a worse outcome; however, this did not affect the overall mortality rate. The majority of the patients were able to receive conservative treatment, resulting in a shorter length of their hospital stay.