Long-term outcomes after endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage for symptomatic pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stenosis.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde
/ methods
Constriction, Pathologic
/ pathology
Drainage
/ methods
Endosonography
/ methods
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreas
/ pathology
Pancreaticojejunostomy
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Stents
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasonography, Interventional
/ methods
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 02 2021
24 02 2021
Historique:
received:
01
12
2020
accepted:
10
02
2021
entrez:
25
2
2021
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is limited evidence supporting the usefulness of endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage (ERPD) for symptomatic pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stenosis (sPJS). We examined the usefulness of ERPD for sPJS. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10 benign sPJS patients. A forward-viewing endoscope was used in all sessions. Following items were evaluated: technical success, adverse events, and clinical outcome of ERPD. The technical success rate was 100% (10/10) in initial ERPD; 9 patients had a pancreatic stent (no-internal-flap: n = 4, internal-flap: n = 5). The median follow-up was 920 days. Four patients developed recurrence. Among them, 3 had a stent with no-internal-flap in initial ERPD, the stent migrated in 3 at recurrence, and a stent was not placed in 1 patient in initial ERPD. Four follow-up interventions were performed. No recurrence was observed in 6 patients. None of the stents migrated (no-internal-flap: n = 1, internal-flap: n = 5) and no stents were replaced due to stent failure. Stenting with no-internal-flap was associated with recurrence (p = 0.042). Mild adverse events developed in 14.3% (2/14). In conclusions, ERPD was performed safely with high technical success. Recurrence was common after stenting with no-internal-flap. Long-term stenting did not result in stent failure.Clinical trial register and their clinical registration number: Nos. 58-115 and R2-9.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33627731
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84024-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-84024-z
pmc: PMC7904781
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4489Références
Endoscopy. 2013;45 Suppl 2 UCTN:E435-6
pubmed: 24338178
Endoscopy. 2009 Oct;41(10):898-901
pubmed: 19750454
Endosc Ultrasound. 2015 Oct-Dec;4(4):336-41
pubmed: 26643703
Endoscopy. 1991 May;23(3):171-6
pubmed: 1860448
Endoscopy. 2015 May;47(5):462-5
pubmed: 25590174
Endoscopy. 2017 Jan;49(1):69-74
pubmed: 27760436
VideoGIE. 2018 Apr 24;3(6):196-198
pubmed: 30128386
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar;34(3):612-619
pubmed: 30650206
Endoscopy. 2006 Dec;38(12):1241-5
pubmed: 17163326
Endoscopy. 2015;47 Suppl 1 UCTN:E41-2
pubmed: 25603522
Gastrointest Endosc. 1995 Nov;42(5):461-7
pubmed: 8566639
Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Apr;98(4):821-6
pubmed: 12738462
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):376-82
pubmed: 21295649
J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Nov;22(11):2021-2028
pubmed: 29980974
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1166-73
pubmed: 20303489
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan;85(1):164-169
pubmed: 27460387
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Apr;77(4):593-600
pubmed: 23290720
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2016 Nov;9(6):913-919
pubmed: 27803744
Dig Endosc. 2020 May 20;:
pubmed: 32434287