Fluid collection after partial pancreatectomy: EUS drainage and long-term follow-up.
EUS-guided drainage
post-pancreatectomy complications
postoperative fluid collection
therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound
Journal
Endoscopic ultrasound
ISSN: 2303-9027
Titre abrégé: Endosc Ultrasound
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101622292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
31
3
2018
medline:
31
3
2018
entrez:
31
3
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Postoperative fluid collection due to pancreatic leak is the most frequent complication after pancreatic surgery. EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection is the gold standard procedure; however, data on outcomes of this procedure are limited. The primary endpoint of our study was relapse over longterm followup, and the secondary endpoint was the efficiency and safety of EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection. This retrospective study was conducted at a single center from December 2008 to April 2016. Global morbidity was defined as the occurrence of an event involving additional endoscopic procedures, hospitalization, or interventional radiologic or surgical procedures. EUS-guided drainage was considered a clinical failure if surgery was required to treat a relapse after stent removal. Fortyone patients were included. The technical success rate was 100%. Drainage was considered a clinical success in 93% (39/41) of cases. Additionally, 19 (46%) complications were identified as global morbidity. The duration between surgery and EUS-guided drainage was not a significantly related factor for morbidity rate (P = 0.8); however, bleeding due to arterial injuries (splenic artery and gastroduodenal artery) from salvage drainage procedures occurred within 25 days following the initial surgery. There was no difference in survival between patients with and without complications. No relapse was reported during the followup (median: 44.75 months; range: 29.24 to 65.74 months). EUSguided drainage for post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection was efficient with no relapse during longterm followup. Morbidity rate was independent of the duration between the initial surgery and EUS-guided drainage; however, bleeding risk was likely more important in cases of early drainage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative fluid collection due to pancreatic leak is the most frequent complication after pancreatic surgery. EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection is the gold standard procedure; however, data on outcomes of this procedure are limited. The primary endpoint of our study was relapse over longterm followup, and the secondary endpoint was the efficiency and safety of EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study was conducted at a single center from December 2008 to April 2016. Global morbidity was defined as the occurrence of an event involving additional endoscopic procedures, hospitalization, or interventional radiologic or surgical procedures. EUS-guided drainage was considered a clinical failure if surgery was required to treat a relapse after stent removal.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fortyone patients were included. The technical success rate was 100%. Drainage was considered a clinical success in 93% (39/41) of cases. Additionally, 19 (46%) complications were identified as global morbidity. The duration between surgery and EUS-guided drainage was not a significantly related factor for morbidity rate (P = 0.8); however, bleeding due to arterial injuries (splenic artery and gastroduodenal artery) from salvage drainage procedures occurred within 25 days following the initial surgery. There was no difference in survival between patients with and without complications. No relapse was reported during the followup (median: 44.75 months; range: 29.24 to 65.74 months).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
EUSguided drainage for post-pancreatic surgery fluid collection was efficient with no relapse during longterm followup. Morbidity rate was independent of the duration between the initial surgery and EUS-guided drainage; however, bleeding risk was likely more important in cases of early drainage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29600794
pii: 228981
doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_112_17
pmc: PMC6482606
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
91-98Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Ann Surg. 1999 May;229(5):693-8; discussion 698-700
pubmed: 10235528
Radiology. 1999 Nov;213(2):573-8
pubmed: 10551244
Arch Surg. 2001 Apr;136(4):391-8
pubmed: 11296108
Endoscopy. 2001 Apr;33(4):317-22
pubmed: 11315892
Surg Endosc. 2004 Mar;18(3):402-6
pubmed: 14735345
Dig Surg. 2004;21(4):262-74
pubmed: 15308865
Surgery. 2005 Jul;138(1):8-13
pubmed: 16003309
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12(4):283-5
pubmed: 16133693
J Gastrointest Surg. 2006 Jun;10(6):804-12
pubmed: 16769536
Arch Surg. 2006 Nov;141(11):1071-6; discussion 1076
pubmed: 17116799
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Mar;102(3):516-24
pubmed: 17335445
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007 Apr;42(4):524-9
pubmed: 17454865
J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Oct;207(4):490-8
pubmed: 18926450
Arch Surg. 2008 Oct;143(10):956-65
pubmed: 18936374
Ann Surg. 2009 Jan;249(1):97-104
pubmed: 19106683
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Jun;13(6):1129-37
pubmed: 19130151
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
Dig Endosc. 2009 Jul;21 Suppl 1:S61-5
pubmed: 19691738
Am Surg. 2009 Aug;75(8):654-7; discussion 657-8
pubmed: 19725286
Surg Endosc. 2011 May;25(5):1518-25
pubmed: 20976483
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Aug;74(2):418-23
pubmed: 21679939
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Nov;15(11):2080-8
pubmed: 21786063
Surg Endosc. 2012 Jun;26(6):1710-7
pubmed: 22179480
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Aug;215(2):177-85
pubmed: 22634120
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Dec;76(6):1259-65
pubmed: 23021161
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jul;27(7):2422-7
pubmed: 23361258
J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Jan;218(1):33-40
pubmed: 24099888
Surgery. 2014 Jan;155(1):47-57
pubmed: 24694359
JAMA Surg. 2014 Apr;149(4):356-63
pubmed: 24740703
Dig Endosc. 2015 Nov;27(7):762-6
pubmed: 25808136
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Apr;83(4):720-9
pubmed: 26548849
Gut. 2017 Dec;66(12):2054-2056
pubmed: 27582509
Z Gastroenterol. 2016 Sep;54(9):1047-53
pubmed: 27612217