Endotherapy for paraduodenal pancreatitis: a large retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Paraduodenal pancreatitis is histologically well defined but its epidemiology, natural history, and connection with chronic pancreatitis are not completely understood. The aim of this study was to review the endoscopic and medical management of paraduodenal pancreatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of all patients with paraduodenal pancreatitis diagnosed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) between 1995 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical features, imaging procedures, and treatments were investigated. The primary end point was the rate of clinical success, and the secondary end points were the radiological or endoscopic improvement, complication rate, and overall survival rate. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were included in the study (88.2 % alcohol abuse; median age 49 years [range 37 - 70]; 50 men). The most frequent symptoms at presentation were pain (n = 50; 98.0 %) and weight loss (n = 36; 70.6 %). Chronic pancreatitis was present in 36 patients (70.6 %), and 45 patients (88.2 %) had cysts. Other findings included stricture of the pancreatic duct (n = 37; 72.5 %), common bile duct (n = 29; 56.9 %), and duodenum (n = 24; 47.1 %). A total of 39 patients underwent initial endoscopic treatment: cystenterostomy (n = 20), pancreatic and/or biliary duct drainage (n = 19), and/or duodenal dilation (n = 6). For the patients with available follow-up (n = 41), 24 patients required repeat endoscopy and 9 patients required surgery after the initial endoscopic management. After a median follow-up of 54 months (range 6 - 156 months), complete clinical success was achieved in 70.7 % of patients, and the overall survival rate was 94.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series concerning the management of paraduodenal pancreatitis using endotherapy as the first-line intervention. Although repeat endoscopic procedures were required in half of the patients, no severe complication was observed and surgical treatment was ultimately needed in less than 25 % of the patients.

Self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of benign upper GI leaks and perforations.

BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) have been suggested for the treatment of benign upper GI leaks and perforations. Nevertheless, uncomplicated removal remains difficult. Placement of a self-expandable plastic stent (SEPS) into an SEMS can facilitate retrieval. OBJECTIVES: This study reviews our experience with sequential SEMS/SEPS placement in patients with benign upper GI leaks or perforations. DESIGN: A retrospective review of the chart of each patient who underwent SEMS placement for benign upper GI leaks or perforations, including (1) fistula after bariatric surgery, (2) other postoperative fistulae, (3) Boerhaave syndrome, (4) iatrogenic perforations, and (5) other perforations. SETTING: Single, tertiary center. PATIENTS: Eighty-eight patients (37 male, average age 51.6 years, range 18-89 years). INTERVENTIONS: SEMS placement and removal, with or without SEPS placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility of SEMS removal and successful treatment of lesions and short-term and long-term complications. RESULTS: A total of 153 SEMSs were placed in 88 patients; all placements were successful. Six patients died (not SEMS-related deaths) and 6 patients were lost to follow-up with SEMSs still in place. Seventy-three of the remaining 76 patients had successful SEMS removal (96.1%). The rate of successful SEMS removal per stent was 97.8% (132/135). Resolution of leaks and perforations was achieved in 59 patients (77.6%) with standard endoscopic treatment, and in 64 patients (84.2%) after prolonged, repeated endoscopic treatment. Spontaneous migration occurred in 11.1% of stents, and there were minor complications (dysphagia, hyperplasia, rupture of coating) in 20.9% and major complications (bleeding, perforation, tracheal compression) in 5.9%. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and highly selected patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Use of SEMSs for the treatment of benign upper GI leaks and perforations is feasible, relatively safe, and effective, and SEMSs can be easily removed 1 to 3 weeks after SEPS insertion. Leaks and perforations were closed in 77.6% of cases.

Prophylactic pancreatic stents: does size matter? A comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr stents in reference to post-ERCP pancreatitis and migration rate.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The ideal pancreatic stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to assess the relative benefit of 4-Fr versus 5-Fr stents in a population at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, and the relative frequency of spontaneous migration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS) from 2002 to 2009 were reviewed. Patients were classified into two groups according to stent size and compared based on outcome; spontaneous migration or endoscopic removal. RESULTS: A total of 346 PPS were placed in 308 patients (224 women, 84 men). The average age was 48.9 years. The most common indication for PPS was sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Needle knife papillotomy was the most common procedure performed. Forty-seven patients had PEP, 4 Fr (14.6%) and 5 Fr (12.9%), with only one case of severe pancreatitis. Factors associated with higher rates PEP were younger age and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Complete follow-up was not available in 37 patients. Spontaneous migration was demonstrated in 115 of the 4 Fr (95.8%) and 134 of the 5 Fr (68.7%). The remaining 66 (five from the 4 Fr and 61 from the 5 Fr), were removed by endoscopy. The mean delay to demonstrate spontaneous migration was 34.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: PPS in high-risk patients reduced the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and nearly eliminated severe pancreatitis. No significant difference between the 4 Fr and 5 Fr in reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis was observed. However, spontaneous migration was more frequent with the 4-Fr stent.

Nonampullary duodenal polyps: characteristics and endoscopic management.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for endoscopic resection and surveillance of nonampullary duodenal (NAD) polyps are still not well-defined. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of NAD polyps and evaluate the role of endoscopic management. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic center. PATIENTS: This study involved 59 patients with NAD polyps. INTERVENTION: Endoscopic polypectomy, biopsy, and argon plasma coagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complete polypectomy, complications, and recurrence. RESULTS: Ninety-six endoscopies were performed. The mean patient age was 62.8 years. The mean (+/- standard deviation) polyp size was 17.2 mm +/- 1.6 mm. The mean follow-up time was 26 months. Most lesions were sessile, solitary, and located in the descending duodenum. The procedure most often performed was submucosal injection followed by snare polypectomy. Adenomas were found in 68% of lesions overall and in 84% of lesions >2 cm. Successful resection was accomplished in 93% of cases on the initial attempt. Multiple endoscopies were needed in 5% of cases. The overall complete resection rate was 98%. Recurrence was documented in 37% of cases. Complications occurred in 5.2% of patients. Polyps of >2 cm were associated with higher rates of adenoma and a higher incidence of recurrence. Colon adenomas were found in 53% of patients with duodenal adenomas. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective review. Not all patients underwent colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: NAD polyps were large, sessile, and more commonly found in the second portion of the duodenum. They are more likely to be adenomatous when the lesion size is >2 cm. Despite successful endoscopic management, over one third of lesions demonstrated recurrence.

Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a practice survey.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic pancreatic stenting is widely used by expert biliary endoscopists to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are thought to prevent PEP. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of pancreatic stenting and NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis among endoscopists and its determinants. DESIGN: A survey was distributed to 467 endoscopists attending a course on therapeutic digestive endoscopy. INTERVENTION: Completed surveys were collected from 141 endoscopists performing ERCP in 29 countries (answer rate 30.2%); practices were most often located in community hospitals with an annual hospital volume of < or = 500 ERCPs (in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France in about half of cases). For all conditions listed, including needle-knife precut, previous PEP, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and ampullectomy, less than half of the endoscopists reported attempting prophylactic pancreatic stenting in > or = 75% of cases. Thirty (21.3%) survey respondents did not perform prophylactic pancreatic stenting in any circumstance; this was mainly ascribed to lack of experience. Measurement of PEP incidence and an annual hospital volume of > 500 ERCPs were independently associated with the use of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (P = .005 and P = .030, respectively). Most survey respondents (n = 118, 83.7%) did not use NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. This was mainly ascribed to lack of scientific evidence of its benefits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of cases in which pancreatic stenting is attempted during ERCP; reasons for not using prophylactic pancreatic stenting or NSAIDs. LIMITATIONS: Survey, not an audit of practice. CONCLUSIONS: Despite scientific evidence of its benefits, use of prophylactic pancreatic stenting is not as widely adopted as previously thought; use of NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis is marginal.