Comparison of outcomes between endoscopic ultrasound-guided transcolonic and transrectal drainage of abdominopelvic abscesses

BACKGROUND

Transrectal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pelvic abscess drainage has been reported, but data on transcolonic drainage are scant.

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing transcolonic and transrectal drainage of abdominopelvic abscesses.

METHODS

Retrospective study of all patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of abdominopelvic abscesses over a 7-year period. Abscesses were drained by a standard single-step EUS-guided technique with deployment of double-pigtail stents ± catheters. Technical success was defined as successful placement of stents or drainage catheters within the abscess cavity. Treatment success was defined as resolution of abscess on follow-up computed tomography at 2 weeks with symptom improvement.

RESULTS

Of 38 patients, 11 underwent transcolonic and 27 transrectal drainages. There was no difference in patient demographics, laboratory values, and median abscess size (65 vs 70 mm, P = 0.85) between the two cohorts. Etiology of abscess was postsurgical in 65.7%, diverticulitis in 13.1%, perforated viscus in 10.5%, and other causes in 10.5%. There was no difference in rates of technical success (100% in each cohort), treatment success (70% vs 96.3%, P = 0.052), or complications (none). Three patients in the transcolonic and one in the transrectal cohort underwent surgery for failed endoscopic drainage (27.3% vs 3.7%, P = 0.06). When evaluated by etiology, treatment success for diverticular abscess was significantly lower compared with others (25% vs 97%, P = 0.002). At a median follow-up of 1228.5 days (interquartile range = 131-1660), all patients with treatment success were doing well with no recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Except for patients with diverticular etiology, treatment of abdominopelvic abscess under EUS guidance is highly effective and safe for both routes.