Sonographically-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for pancreatic stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis

Long-term clinical outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for pancreatic duct stone treatment in patients with chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic stones (P-ESWL) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are the preferred therapeutic approaches for painful chronic pancreatitis (CP) with pancreatic stones. This study aimed to report the short- and long-term outcomes following P-ESWL and ERCP in a large cohort with CP.

METHODS

Patients with painful CP and pancreatic stones >5 mm in size, who underwent P-ESWL and subsequent ERCP between March 2011 and June 2018, were included in this retrospective-prospective mixed observational study. The total stone clearance rates were recorded. All patients were followed up until the end of March 2024, with the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, pain type, quality-of-life scores and other relevant information recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 2071 patients underwent P-ESWL, and 93.1% of them subsequently underwent ERCP during the study period. Patients were followed up for an average of 11.8 years from the onset of CP and 6.7 years from the first P-ESWL procedure. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 73.7% of the patients. At the end of the follow-up period, 70.1% of the patients achieved complete pain remission. Significant pain type conversion and lower VAS scores were observed in the patients after treatment. Quality-of-life scores and body mass indices increased after P-ESWL and ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

P-ESWL and ERCP are effective and minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic stones in patients with painful CP. Most patients achieved complete pain relief, and pain-type conversion was common after treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05916547).

Adverse events of pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a literature review

Pancreatic stones are the result of pathophysiologic changes in chronic pancreatitis with an incidence of more than 90%. At present, pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (P-ESWL) can be used as the first-line treatment for large or complex stones. Although a large number of studies have proven the safety and effectiveness of P-ESWL, we should also pay attention to postoperative adverse events, mainly due to the scattering of shock waves in the conduction pathway. Adverse events can be classified as either complications or transient adverse events according to the severity. Because the anatomic location of organs along the shock wave conducting pathway differs greatly, adverse events after P-ESWL are varied and difficult to predict. This paper outlines the mechanism, definition, classification, management and risk factors for adverse events related to P-ESWL. It also discusses the technique of P-ESWL, indications and contraindications of P-ESWL, and adverse events in special populations.

Efficacy of Different Pancreatic Interventional Treatments for Chronic Calcific Pancreatitis: A Two-Year Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are the main treatments for chronic calcific pancreatitis (CCP). However, clinical outcomes remain unclear for patients underwent different interventional therapies based on these two techniques.

Methods

A total of 125 patients with CCP who underwent ESWL, ERCP or a combined treatment at two medical centers from January 2019 to January 2020 were considered. Patients were divided into four groups according to intervention types (ESWL-alone, ERCP-alone, ESWL-ERCP and ERCP-ESWL). A retrospective survey with a follow-up for 2 years was conducted. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications, abdominal pain and re-intervention during the follow-up. Possible prognostic factors were evaluated by multivariate analysis.

Results

Patients in ESWL-ERCP group had the highest complete pain relief rate (49.28%), the lowest pain frequency (1 time/year) and intensity (VAS-score, 1.84±1.93) during the follow-up, which were statistically significant compared with the other three groups. ESWL-ERCP group also had the lowest postoperative complication rate (6%), while the highest complication rate (16%) was observed in ESWL-alone group. Both ESWL-alone and ESWL-ERCP group had significant lower frequencies of re-interventions (0.44 ± 0.73, 0.57±0.98, respectively) after the initial treatments. An analysis of treatment-based prognostic factors found significant interactions between age, course of CCP, max pancreatic duct stone diameter, calcium, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and triglyceride.

Conclusion

ESWL-ERCP was considered as the most effective interventional therapy for CCP with a better safety in a two-year follow-up. Prognostic factors may help to determine the patients who benefit by this technique.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones: an observational study

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies suggest that fragmentation of pancreatic duct stones (PDS) using extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is associated with pain relief. However, the treatment may not be effective in certain subgroups.

AIM

To evaluate predictors of pain relief after ESWL in patients with chronic pancreatitis and PDS.

METHODS

Retrospective study including patients with chronic pancreatitis undergoing ESWL for painful PDS. Analgesic use before and after the ESWL procedure was registered. We defined adequate pain relief after ESWL as 'pain-free without analgesics or with use of weak analgesics as needed'. The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (approval number: AHH-2017-048).

RESULTS

We included 81 patients (median age 58 years; 63% men; 68% alcoholic pancreatitis). Patients underwent one to seven ESWL procedures (mean 1.7). A concurrent ERCP was performed in 17%. All patients used analgesics before the ESWL procedure (68 used opioids). After ESWL, 43 still used opioids. Thirty-two patients achieved adequate pain relief. Univariable regression analysis showed that older age predicted adequate pain relief (OR 1.09;1.03-1.16; p = .002) as did location of the stone in the head or neck (OR 2.59;1.04-6.45; p = .041). In multivariable analysis, we found that the only two predictors of adequate pain relief were age (p = .002) and the location of the stones (p = .039).

CONCLUSION

After the ESWL, about four out of ten patients are pain-free without medication or able to manage their pain with weak analgesics. Age and the location of the stones may be considered when evaluating if patients are eligible for referral to ESWL.

Success of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Chronic Calcific Pancreatitis Management: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This is a meta-analysis and systematic review to assess the overall utility and safety of Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in chronic calcific pancreatitis. Primary outcomes are pain relief, narcotic usage, ductal clearance, quality of life, and pancreatic exocrine and endocrine function.

METHODS

Studies involving ESWL in chronic calcific pancreatitis with main pancreatic duct stones greater than 5 mm and patients that failed conservative pain management were included. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 1471 reference articles, in which 184 articles were selected and reviewed. Data were extracted from 27 studies (N = 3189) which met the inclusion criterion. The pooled proportion of patients with absence of pain at follow-up was 52.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 50.85-54.56) and mild to moderate pain at follow-up was 33.43% (95% CI, 31.40-35.50). Quality of life improved in 88.21% (95% CI, 85.43-90.73) and complete ductal clearance was 70.69% (95% CI, 68.97-72.38) in the pooled patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESWL is an effective and safe management option in patients with chronic calcific pancreatitis patients with main pancreatic duct stone size greater than 5 mm who did not get adequate pain relief with conservative management.

Italian consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis

This paper gives practical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Statements have been elaborated by working teams of experts, by searching for and analysing the literature, and submitted to a consensus process by using a Delphi modified procedure. The statements report recommendations on clinical and nutritional approach, assessment of pancreatic function, treatment of exocrine pancreatic failure and of secondary diabetes, treatment of pain and prevention of painful relapses. Moreover, the role of endoscopy in approaching pancreatic pain, pancreatic stones, duct narrowing and dilation, and complications was considered. Recommendations for most appropriate use of various imaging techniques and of ultrasound endoscopy are reported. Finally, a group of recommendations are addressed to the surgical treatment, with definition of right indications, timing, most appropriate procedures and techniques in different clinical conditions and targets, and clinical and functional outcomes following surgery.

[Treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis]

Abdominal pain is the most frequent symptom in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Between 70 and 90% of patients experience pain at some point in the course of their disease. In patients with alcoholic pancreatitis, pain is usually experienced at disease onset. Two distinct forms of idiopathic chronic pancreatitis can be distinguished: in early-onset (juvenile) idiopathic chronic pancreatitis, pain occurs initially, while in late-onset (senile) idiopathic chronic pancreatitis, pain is delayed or may even be absent. According to several authors, between 27 and 67% of patients require surgery due to lack of response to medical treatment. Pain may reoccur in more than 30% of patients who have undergone surgery and consequently, reintervention is not uncommon. Several treatment options are currently available: medical, endoscopic and surgical. The most appropriate treatment for each patient should be chosen on an individualized basis.