Endoscopic management of pancreatic fistula after pancreatic and other abdominal surgery

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.

[Endoscopic management of complications in the hepatobiliary and pancreatic system and the tracheobronchial tree]

Endoscopic methods are nowadays a priceless tool for the treatment of postoperative complications after hepatobiliary, pancreatic and thoracic surgery. Endoscopic decompression of the biliary tract is the treatment of choice for biliary duct leakage after cholecystectomy, hepatic resection or liver transplantation. Postoperative biliary duct stenosis can also be successfully treated by endoscopic balloon dilatation and implantation of various endoprostheses in most of the patients. In the case of pancreatic fistulas, especially those occurring after central or distal pancreatic resections, endoscopic decompression of the pancreatic duct can significantly contribute to rapid healing. Additionally, interventional endosonography provides a valuable treatment option for transgastric drainage of postoperative fluid collections, which often accompany a pancreatic fistula. Various treatment alternatives have been described for the bronchoscopic treatment of bronchopleural and tracheoesophageal fistulas, which often lead to the rapid alleviation of symptoms and often to the definitive closure of the fistula.

Minimally invasive management of severe acute pancreatitis: Current status and future perspectives

In the past few years, the diagnosis and treatment of acute pancreatitis have moved towards a multidisciplinary, targeted, and minimally invasive approach. The optimal timing, route, and treatment strategy for intervention for local and systemic complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis need to be re-evaluated. This review focuses on the development of minimally invasive management of severe acute pancreatitis in recent years and provides an outlook on future directions.

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

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.

CONCLUSION

EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.

Endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage of post-operative peripancreatic fluid collections following pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

Post-operative peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) is a common complication following pancreatic resection which can be managed with endoscopic or percutaneous drainage.

METHODS

Patients who underwent either endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of post-operative PFC were extracted from a prospectively-maintained database. The two groups were matched for surgery type, presence of a surgical drain and timing of drainage.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine matched patients were identified in each group with a median age of 62 years. For primary drainage, technical success was achieved in almost all patients in both endoscopic and percutaneous groups (100% and 97%, p = NS); clinical success was achieved in 67% and 59%, respectively (p = 0.63). At least one "salvage" drainage procedure was required in 13 endoscopic patients versus 16 in the percutaneous group. Clinical success was achieved following the first salvage. Procedure in 85% of the endoscopic patients and 88% of the percutaneous patients (p = 0.62). Stent/drain duration (59 vs 33 days, p < 0.001) and number of post-procedural CT studies (2 vs 1, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in the endoscopic group. There was no difference in length of stay, complication, or recurrence between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic drainage of post-operative PFC appears to be safe and effective with comparable success rates and outcomes to percutaneous drainage.

Endotherapy is effective for pancreatic ductal disruption: A dual center experience

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Pancreatic duct (PD) disruptions occur as a result of different etiologies and can be managed medically, endoscopically, or surgically. The aim of this study was to provide an evaluation on the efficacy of endotherapy for treatment of PD disruption in a large cohort of patients and identify factors that predict successful treatment outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) for transpapillary pancreatic stent placement for PD disruption from 2008 to 2013 at two tertiary referral institutions. PD disruption was defined as extravasation of contrast from the pancreatic duct as seen on ERP. Therapeutic success was defined by resolution of PD leak on ERP, clinical, and/or imaging evaluation.

RESULTS

We evaluated 107 patients (58% male, mean age 53 years) with PD disruption. Etiologies of PD disruption were acute pancreatitis (36%), post-operative (31%), chronic pancreatitis (29%), and trauma (4%). PD disruption was successfully bridged by a stent in 45 (44%) patients. Two patients developed post-sphincterotomy bleeding, two had stent migration, and two patients died as a result of post-ERP related complications. Placement of a PD stent was successful in 103/107 (96%) patients. Therapeutic success was achieved in 80/107 (75%) patients. Non-acute pancreatitis etiologies and absence of complete duct disruption were independent predictors of therapeutic success.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy using a transpapillary stent for PD disruption is safe and effective. Absence of complete duct disruption and non-AP etiologies determine a favorable endoscopic outcome.

A Pancreatic Fistula after the Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a popular surgical weight-loss procedure in the treatment of morbid obesity. There are some complications regarding this procedure in the literature. This report presents a pancreatic fistula (PF) case, which has not been previously seen.

Efficacy of the double-pigtail stent as a conservative treatment for grade B pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatogastric anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in surgical techniques and postoperative care, morbidity associated with pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is still high. Grade B pancreatic fistula (PF) requires a specific combination of radiologically guided external drainage and medical support. This treatment is effective but requires prolonged hospitalization and maintenance of external drainage. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a double-pigtail stent (DPS) to treat grade B PF after PD with pancreatogastric anastomosis.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and October 2011, all patients who presented grade B PF after PD (n = 6) were included in the study. The PF was diagnosed according to the criteria of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula. Endoscopic treatment was standardized with a DPS. The primary efficacy end point was the feasibility and efficacy of DPS placement. Secondary end points included data on the PF, the DPS placement procedure, and long-term outcome.

RESULTS

Endoscopic DPS placement was achieved in all patients with no complications. The median time to onset of PF after PD was 14 days. Closure of the external PF was obtained 7 days after the introduction of the DPS. The median time to external drain removal was 7 days after DPS placement, and the median time to oral refeeding was 7 days after DPS placement for all patients. The median time to DPS removal was 60 days. The median length of hospital stay after DPS placement was 10 days. During a median follow-up period of 21 months, there was no recurrence of PF after removal of the DPS.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment of grade B PF after PD appears to be effective and safe and is associated with shorter hospitalization.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of postoperative pancreatic collections

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic leak is a major cause of morbidity after pancreatectomy. Traditionally, peripancreatic fluid collections have been managed by percutaneous or operative drainage. Data for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of postoperative fluid collections are limited. Here we report on the safety, efficacy, and timing of EUS-guided drainage of postoperative peripancreatic collections.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of 31 patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections after pancreatic resection. Technical success was defined as successful transgastric deployment of at least one double pigtail plastic stent. Clinical success was defined as resolution of the fluid collection on follow-up CT scan and resolution of symptoms. Early drainage was defined as initial transmural stent placement within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage was performed effectively with a technical success rate of 100%. Clinical success was achieved in 29 of 31 patients (93%). Nineteen of the 29 patients (65%) had complete resolution of their symptoms and collection with the first endoscopic procedure. Repeat drainage procedures, including some with necrosectomy, were required in the remaining 10 patients, with eventual resolution of collection and symptoms. Two patients who did not achieve durable clinical success required percutaneous drainage by interventional radiology. Seventeen (55%) of 31 patients had successful early drainage completed within 30 days of their operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of fluid collections after pancreatic resection is safe and effective. Early drainage (<30 days) of postoperative pancreatic fluid collections was not associated with increased complications in this series.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for pancreatic fistula or pancreatic duct dilation after pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is widely used to manage pancreatic pseudocysts. Several studies have reported the use of EUS-guided drainage for pancreatic fistula and stasis of pancreatic juice caused by stricture of the pancreatic duct after pancreatic resection.

METHODS

At the authors' hospital, 262 patients underwent surgery involving pancreatic resection from April 2005 to March 2010. In 90 of these patients (34%), a grade B or C postoperative pancreatic fistula developed that required additional treatment. The authors performed EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) for six patients (2.1%) with a pancreatic fistula or dilation of the main pancreatic duct visible by EUS. Percutaneous drainage was provided for 18 patients (6.8%). The success rates for EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage were compared in a retrospective analysis.

RESULTS

In all six cases, EUS-TD was performed successfully without complications. Five of the six patients were successfully treated with only one trial of EUS-TD. The final technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-TD and percutaneous drainage. Both the short- and long-term clinical success rates for EUS-TD were 100% and those for percutaneous drainage were 61.1 and 83%, respectively. The differences in these rates were not significant (short-term success, P = 0.091 vs. long-term success, P = 0.403). However, the time to clinical success was significantly shorter with EUS-TD (5.8 days) than with percutaneous drainage (30.4 days; P = 0.0013) in the current series.

CONCLUSIONS

The EUS-TD approach appears to be a safe and technically feasible alternative to percutaneous drainage and may be considered as first-line therapy for pancreatic fistulas visible by EUS.

Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage for the treatment of pancreatic fistula occurring after LDLT

Pancreatic fistula is a quite rare complication in patients who undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, in the cases that show pancreatic fistula, the limited volume of the graft and the resultant inadequate liver function may complicate the management of the fistula. As a result, the pancreatic fistula may result in the death of the patient. We present 2 cases in which endoscopic treatment was effective against pancreatic fistulas that developed after LDLT. In case 1, a 61-year-old woman underwent LDLT for primary biliary cirrhosis. Because of a portal venous thrombus caused by a splenorenal shunt, the patient underwent portal vein reconstruction, and a splenorenal shunt was ligated on postoperative day (POD) 7. The main pancreatic duct was injured during the manipulation to achieve hemostasis, thereby necessitating open drainage. However, discharge of pancreatic fluid continued even after POD 300. Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage (ENPD) was performed, and this procedure resulted in a remarkable decrease in drain output. The refractory pancreatic fistula healed on day 40 after ENPD. In case 2, a 58-year-old man underwent LDLT for cirrhosis caused by the hepatitis C virus. When the portal vein was exposed during thrombectomy, the pancreatic head was injured, which led to the formation of a pancreatic fistula. Conservative therapy was ineffective; therefore, ENPD was performed. The pancreatic fistula healed on day 38 after ENPD. The findings in these 2 cases show that endoscopic drainage of the main pancreatic duct is a less invasive and effective treatment for pancreatic fistulas that develop after LDLT.

Quality improvement for pancreatic cancer care: is regionalization a feasible and effective mechanism?

Variability exists in the quality of pancreatic cancer care provided in the United States. High-volume centers have been shown to have improved outcomes for pancreatectomy. Regionalization of pancreatic cancer care to high-volume centers has the potential to improve care and outcomes. Practical limitations such as overloading currently available high-volume centers, extending patient travel times, sharing patients within a multipayer health system, and incorporating patient preferences must be addressed for regionalization to become a reality. The benefits and limitations of regionalization of pancreatic cancer care are discussed in this review. To improve the overall quality of pancreatic cancer care at all hospitals in the United States, a combination of referral of patients with pancreatic cancer to high- and moderate-volume hospitals in conjunction with specific quality-improvement efforts at those institutions is proposed.

Endoscopic sealing of pancreatic fistulas: four case reports and review of the literature

We report four patients with pancreatic fistulas that failed to respond to conservative treatment. The fistulas were closed by endoscopic injection of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl) diluted with an oily contrast agent (Lipiodol). A literature review revealed 32 similar cases in which endoscopic treatment with fibrin sealants (n = 11) or cyanoacrylate (n = 21) was used to close the fistulas. Based on our own experience and the literature review, we conclude that endoscopic sealing of pancreatic fistulas can be performed safely and effectively by experienced endoscopists in a tertiary centre. The procedure seems useful in the management of complicated pancreatic fistulas which do not respond to conservative treatment and may obviate the need for surgery.

[Endoscopic management of postoperative pancreatic collections]

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of pancreatic postoperative collections are usually managed with a multidisciplinary team. Different managements are possible: abstention, external drainage, endoscopic treatment or surgery.

METHODS

We report on a case series of five patients with a postoperative pancreatic collection, endoscopically managed. Patients underwent all a CT scan associated or not with endoscopic ultrasonography.

RESULTS

An endoscopic cystenterosotomy was performed in all the cases, with two double pig tail stents sometimes associated with nasocystic drainage for clearing the cyst lumen and with transpapillary drainage in one case. All the procedures were successful and patients healed in all the cases with the disappearance of the radiological image within a 33 days to three months range with one complication due to superinfection of the drained cyst, endoscopically managed with a nasocystic catheter.

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic endoscopy, with a multidisciplinary approach, is a promising way to manage postoperative pancreatic collections.

Endoscopic treatment of external pancreatic fistulas: when draining the main pancreatic duct is not enough

OBJECTIVES

Transpapillary drainage of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) has been proposed for the treatment of external pancreatic fistulas (EPF) but may not suffice to treat complex cases. The aim of the present study was to explore the efficacy of various endoscopic or combined percutaneous and endoscopic techniques in the treatment of EPFs.

METHODS

Sixteen patients presenting with EPFs were treated in our department. The techniques applied and patients' clinical outcome are described.

RESULTS

All but three patients underwent transpapillary MPD drainage by pancreatic sphincterotomy (N = 13). Additional endoscopic procedures performed were: (a) pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage (N = 5), (b) transmural drainage between the fistula path and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (N = 5), and (c) endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreaticoduodenostomy because of complete pancreatic duct rupture (N = 1). Fistula closure was achieved in all patients except one, who required surgery. During a median follow-up period of 18 months (range 6-52) three patients had fistula recurrence, and two, PFC recurrence. Both conditions were cured successfully by repeated endoscopic therapy. All recurrences occurred within 3 months of initial successful treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined endoscopic and percutaneous treatment appears to be safe and effective for the management of complex cases of EPFs.

Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic fistulas

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic fistulas are managed primarily by conservative treatment. Surgery is performed in cases of conservative treatment failure. Endoscopic treatment is reported to be both effective and safe as an alternative treatment method.

METHODS

A total of 26 patients underwent endoscopic treatment after failure of conservative treatment between January 2002 and November 2004. The mean time between the onset of fistula and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure was 95 days. The mean fistula output volume was 400 ml per day. Four patients had pancreatic ascites. The aim of the endoscopic treatment was to bypass the ductal disruption by placing stents or drains where the origin of fistulous tract could be identified, and to lower the pancreatic duct pressure by performing pancreatic sphincterotomy or by placing stents where the site of the leak could not be identified.

RESULTS

Pancreatography could be performed in all the patients except one. Partial duct disruption occurred in 16 patients. All of the fistulas closed after the ductal disruption was bypassed. Pancreatic sphincterotomy or endoprothesis placement was effective for eight of the remaining nine patients in whom the ductal disruption originated from the tail of the pancreas and hence could not be bypassed. The overall success rate was 94% for the patients with partial duct disruption. Four patients had side branch leaks. All of them closed after placement of an endoprothesis. Fistulas closed in only one (20%) of the five patients with complete duct disruption. Pancreatic ascites resolved in two of the four patients after endoscopic treatment. No serious complications resulted from endoscopic treatment other than proximally migrated stents in two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment is an effective and safe method for patients with pancreatic fistulas unresponsive to conservative treatment. The success rate is very high, especially for patients with partial and side branch duct disruption.