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

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 ultrasound-guided versus percutaneous drainage for the management of post-operative fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Post-operative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) can be drained using percutaneous or endoscopic approaches. The primary aim of this study was to compare rates of clinical success between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUSD) with percutaneous drainage (PTD) in the management of symptomatic POPFCs after distal pancreatectomy. Secondary outcomes included technical success, total number of interventions, time to resolution, rates of adverse events (AEs), and POPFC recurrence.

METHODS

Adults who underwent distal pancreatectomy from January 2012 to August 2021 and developed symptomatic POPFC in the resection bed were retrospectively identified from a single academic center database. Demographic data, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were abstracted. Clinical success was defined as symptomatic improvement and radiographic resolution without requiring an alternate drainage modality. Quantitative variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical data were compared using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Of 1046 patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy, 217 met study inclusion criteria (median age 60 years, 51.2% female), of whom 106 underwent EUSD and 111 PTD. There were no significant differences in baseline pathology and POPFC size. PTD was generally performed earlier after surgery (10 vs. 27 days; p < 0.001) and more commonly in the inpatient setting (82.9% vs. 49.1%; p < 0.001). EUSD was associated with a significantly higher rate of clinical success (92.5% vs. 76.6%; p = 0.001), fewer median number of interventions (2 vs. 4; p < 0.001), and lower rate of POPFC recurrence (7.6% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.007). AEs were similar between EUSD (10.4%) and PTD (6.3%, p = 0.28), with approximately one-third of EUSD AEs due to stent migration.

CONCLUSION

In patients with POPFCs after distal pancreatectomy, delayed drainage with EUSD was associated with higher rates of clinical success, fewer interventions, and lower rates of recurrence than earlier drainage with PTD.

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.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage of postoperative fluid collection after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Postoperative fluid collection is a common complication of pancreatic resection without clear management guidelines. This study aimed to compare outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided trans-gastric drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in patients who experienced this adverse event after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

Methods

Demographic and clinical data and intervention outcomes of 53 patients who underwent drainage procedure (EUS-guided, n = 32; PCD, n = 21) for fluid collection after PD between January 2015 and June 2019 in our tertiary referral center were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Prior to drainage, 83.0% had leukocytosis and 92.5% presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: fever (69.8%), abdominal pain (69.8%), and nausea/vomiting (17.0%). Within 8 weeks of drainage, 77.4% showed a diameter decrease of more than 50% (87.5% in EUS vs. 66.7% in PCD, p = 0.09). Post-procedural intravenous antibiotics were used for an average of 8.1 ± 4.3 days and 12.4 ± 7.4 days for EUS group and PCD group, respectively (p = 0.01). The EUS group had a shorter post-procedural hospital stay than the PCD group (9.8 ± 1.1 vs. 15.8 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.01). However, the two groups showed no statistically significant difference in technical or clinical success rate, reintervention rate, or adverse event rate.

Conclusions

EUS-guided drainage and PCD are both safe and effective methods for managing fluid collection after PD. However, EUS-guided drainage can shorten hospital stay and duration of intravenous antibiotics use.

The use of endoscopic ultrasound in the management of post-surgical and pancreatic fluid collections

Fluid collections after abdominal surgeries, particularly pancreatic surgeries, are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Up until recently, percutaneous drainage was the first line therapy, but not without disadvantages, including high maintenance, risk of infection and chronic fistulas, electrolyte losses, and impact on quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of post-surgical fluid collections (PSFCs) is safe and effective, carrying similar success, adverse event (AE), and recurrence rates as percutaneous drainage. Despite limited data on EUS-guided drainage of PSFCs, especially with regards to direct comparisons to percutaneous drainage, EUS management of these collections is becoming the first-line approach in many expert institutions.

Endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection after pancreatic surgery: An up-to-date meta-analysis and systematic review

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUSD) and percutaneous drainage (PD) have reportedly been used for postoperative pancreatic fluid collection (PFC). However, there is limited evidence regarding safety and efficacy in a comparison of EUSD and PD for postoperative PFC. We conducted a search of the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to August 2020. Studies comparing EUSD and PD for postoperative PFC were included. The outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and recurrence of PFC.We included a total of 6 studies involving 247 patients in the current study. There was no significant difference between EUSD and PD in terms of technical success (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-3.12; p = 0.94) and clinical success (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.68-2.72; p = 0.39). PFC recurrence and adverse events were similar between the two groups (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 0.75-4.37; p = 0.18 and OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.31-1.92; p = 0.58, respectively).This meta-analysis confirmed that EUSD has comparable safety and efficacy to PD for postoperative PFC. Additional high-quality studies are required in the future.

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.

Percutaneous biopsy and drainage of the pancreas

Percutaneous pancreatic interventions performed by abdominal radiologists play important diagnostic and therapeutic roles in the management of a wide range of pancreatic pathology. While often performed with endoscopy, pancreatic mass biopsy obtained via a percutaneous approach may serve as the only feasible option for diagnosis in patients with post-surgical anatomy, severe cardiopulmonary conditions, or prior non-diagnostic endoscopic attempts. Biopsy of pancreatic transplants are commonly performed percutaneously due to inaccessible location of the allograft by endoscopy, usually in the right lower quadrant or pelvis. Percutaneous drainage of collections in acute pancreatitis is primarily indicated for infection with clinical deterioration and may be performed alone or in combination with endoscopic drainage. Post-surgical pancreatic collections related to pancreatic duct fistula or leak also often warrant therapeutic percutaneous drainage. Knowledge of appropriate indications, strategies of approach, technique, and complications associated with these procedures is critical for a successful clinical practice.

The Role of EUS-Guided Drainage in the Management of Postoperative Fluid Collections after Pancreatobiliary Surgery

Postoperative fluid collection (POFC) is a challenging complication following pancreatobiliary surgery. Traditional treatment with surgical drainage is associated with significant morbidity, while percutaneous drainage is associated with a higher rate of recurrence and the need for repeated interventions. Studies have shown that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage may offer a promising solution to this problem. There are limited data on the ideal therapeutic protocol for EUS-guided drainage of POFC including the timing for drainage; type, size, and number of stents to use; and the need for endoscopic debridement and irrigation. Current practices extrapolated from the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis may not be applicable to POFC. There are increasing data to suggest that drainage procedures may be performed within two weeks after surgery. While most authors advocate the use of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs), there have been a number of reports on the use of novel lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs), although no direct comparisons have been made between the two.

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Drainage of Abdominal Collections—An Analysis over 5 Years

Introduction. Ultrasound-guided (US-guided) percutaneous drainage (PD) of abdominal collections represents the first-choice alternative to surgical intervention. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of PD of visceral and non-visceral abdominal collections by reviewing our personal experience over a period of 5 years. Material and methods. The present study included 66 patients who underwent PD under ultrasound guidance. We analyzed clinical variables (collection size, catheter diameter, collection type, microbiological analysis, antibiotic regimens) along with the outcomes of the procedure. Results. Visceral collections were predominant, encompassing 38 hepatic abscesses and 1 splenic hematoma. Microbiological analysis showed that the majority (54%) were monomicrobial. The most encountered pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Technical success was achieved in all cases and clinical success was observed in 84.6% of the cases. No immediate procedural complications were detected. There were 6 patients who needed reinterventions, either by catheter replacement or by surgical treatment. The mortality rate was 4.5%, due to patients’ poor overall status and oncological comorbidities. Conclusions. Percutaneous drainage under ultrasound guidance is a safe and effective procedure in the management of abdominal collections.

Novel Uses of Lumen-apposing Metal Stents: A Review of the Literature

The field of therapeutic endoscopy has seen many recent advancements. One such emerging field is the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Although a few LAMS have been developed, the most commonly reviewed and the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved LAMS is the Axios stent by Boston Scientific. In 2013, LAMS were initially approved by the FDA for the management of pancreatic fluid collection drainage in the presence walled-off necrosis. Pancreatic fluid collections are traditionally drained with either a plastic stent or a covered biliary self-expanding metal stent. Plastic stents have a double pigtail feature which prevents stent migration. However, their narrow lumen poses limitations as it can lead to early stent occlusion. Fully covered metal stents have larger diameters, allowing improved drainage and decreased stent occlusion but their tubular shape is prone to migration. Consequently, this results in leakage, and frequent retrievals. Over the years, due to their versatility, LAMS now have many off label uses. This includes management of gastric outlet obstruction, superior mesenteric artery syndrome, strictures, gallbladder drainage, and postsurgical collection drainage. In this review, we will be discussing the FDA approved and the nonapproved uses of LAMS.

Is endoscopic drainage better than percutaneous drainage for patients with pancreatic fluid collections? A comparative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results.

METHODS

we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical drain management after the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: draining-tract-targeted works better than standard management

Purpose

Drains’ role after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is debated by proponents of no drain, draining selected cases, and early drain removal. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of “standard” and “draining-tract-targeted” management of abdominal drains still in situ after diagnosing a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

Methods

PubMed and Scopus were searched for “pancreaticoduodenectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy or duodenopancreatectomy,” “Whipple,” “proximal pancreatectomy,” “pylorus-preserving pancreatectomy,” and “postoperative pancreatic fistula or POPF.”. Main outcomes included clinically relevant (CR) POPF, grade-C POPF, overall mortality, POPF-related mortality, and CR-POPF-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were incidence of radiological and/or endoscopic interventions, reoperations, and completion pancreatectomies.

Results

Overall, 12,089 studies were retrieved by the search of the English literature (01/01/1990–31/12/2018). Three hundred and twenty-six studies (90,321 patients) reporting ≥ 100 PDs and ≥ 10 PD/year were finally included into the study. Average incidences were obtained by averaging the incidence rates reported in the single articles. Pooled incidences were calculated by combining the number of events and the total number of patients considered in the various studies. These were then meta-analyzed using DerSimonian and Laird’s (1986) method. Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare pooled incidences between groups. Post hoc testing was used to see which groups differed. The meta-analyzed incidences were compared using a fixed effect for moderators. “Draining-tract-targeted” management showed a significant advantage over “standard” management in four clinically relevant outcomes out of eight according to pool analysis and in one of them according to meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Clinically, “draining-targeted” management of POPF should be preferred to “standard” management.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00423-020-02005-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.