Comparative outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with minimal necrosis: a retrospective analysis.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY

Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.51821/87.1.12118

S Giri, S Bhrugumalla, S Gangadhar, S Angadi

{"title":"Comparative outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with minimal necrosis: a retrospective analysis.","authors":"S Giri, S Bhrugumalla, S Gangadhar, S Angadi","doi":"10.51821/87.1.12118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cystogastrostomy is the treatment of choice for managing symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). However, studies on the number of stents for optimal drainage of PFCs are limited. Hence, the present study was conducted to compare the outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of PFCs.Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of PFCs with minimal necrosis (pseudocyst or walled-off necrosis with <30% solid content) at a tertiary center in South India from October 2020 to October 2022. Post-procedure, patients were followed up for clinical improvement, and stents were removed after documentation of cyst size reduction on imaging.Results: Sixty-three patients (82.5% males, median age: 34 years) fulfilling the selection criteria were included. For single stent placement (n = 47), stents of size 8.5 Fr or 10 Fr were used, while for placement of two stents (n = 16), 7 Fr stents were used. The technical success rate was 100%. Intraprocedural and early postprocedural adverse events (all mild to moderate) were comparable between the groups (17.0% with single stent vs. 25.0% with two stents, p = NS). Clinical success was achieved in 93.6% of patients, with no difference between both groups. Three patients in the single stent group required additional procedures. All patients underwent successful stent removal after a median follow-up of 14 weeks.Conclusion: A single pigtail stent of 8.5 Fr or 10 Fr size for EUSguided cystogastrostomy provides efficacy and safety similar to that of two stents.","PeriodicalId":7322,"journal":{"name":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51821/87.1.12118","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cystogastrostomy is the treatment of choice for managing symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). However, studies on the number of stents for optimal drainage of PFCs are limited. Hence, the present study was conducted to compare the outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of PFCs.

Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of PFCs with minimal necrosis (pseudocyst or walled-off necrosis with <30% solid content) at a tertiary center in South India from October 2020 to October 2022. Post-procedure, patients were followed up for clinical improvement, and stents were removed after documentation of cyst size reduction on imaging.

Results: Sixty-three patients (82.5% males, median age: 34 years) fulfilling the selection criteria were included. For single stent placement (n = 47), stents of size 8.5 Fr or 10 Fr were used, while for placement of two stents (n = 16), 7 Fr stents were used. The technical success rate was 100%. Intraprocedural and early postprocedural adverse events (all mild to moderate) were comparable between the groups (17.0% with single stent vs. 25.0% with two stents, p = NS). Clinical success was achieved in 93.6% of patients, with no difference between both groups. Three patients in the single stent group required additional procedures. All patients underwent successful stent removal after a median follow-up of 14 weeks.

Conclusion: A single pigtail stent of 8.5 Fr or 10 Fr size for EUSguided cystogastrostomy provides efficacy and safety similar to that of two stents.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在内镜下引流坏死程度极轻的胰腺积液时，单个双鱼尾支架与两个双鱼尾支架的效果比较：回顾性分析。

背景：内镜超声（EUS）引导下的膀胱造口术是治疗无症状胰腺积液（PFC）的首选疗法。然而，有关 PFC 最佳引流的支架数量的研究十分有限。因此，本研究比较了单双尾支架内镜引流 PFCs 的效果：这是一项单中心回顾性分析，研究对象是接受内镜引流的轻度坏死（假性囊肿或壁脱落坏死）PFCs 患者：符合选择标准的 63 名患者（82.5% 为男性，中位年龄：34 岁）被纳入其中。单个支架置入（47 人）使用 8.5 Fr 或 10 Fr 支架，两个支架置入（16 人）使用 7 Fr 支架。技术成功率为 100%。两组的术中和术后早期不良事件（均为轻度至中度）相当（单支架为17.0%，双支架为25.0%，P = NS）。93.6%的患者获得了临床成功，两组之间没有差异。单支架组中有三名患者需要进行额外手术。中位随访14周后，所有患者都成功取出了支架：结论：在 EUS 引导下使用 8.5 Fr 或 10 Fr 大小的单尾支架进行膀胱造口术，其有效性和安全性与使用两个支架相似。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Medicine-Gastroenterology

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

20.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica principally publishes peer-reviewed original manuscripts, reviews, letters to editors, book reviews and guidelines in the field of clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, including digestive oncology, digestive pathology, as well as nutrition. Pure animal or in vitro work will not be considered for publication in the Journal. Translational research papers (including sections of animal or in vitro work) are considered by the Journal if they have a clear relationship to or relevance for clinical hepato-gastroenterology (screening, disease mechanisms and/or new therapies). Case reports and clinical images will be accepted if they represent an important contribution to the description, the pathogenesis or the treatment of a specific gastroenterology or liver problem. The language of the Journal is English. Papers from any country will be considered for publication. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal should not have been published previously (in English or any other language), nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Unsolicited papers are peer-reviewed before it is decided whether they should be accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Manuscripts that do not meet the presentation criteria (as indicated below) will be returned to the authors. Papers that go too far beyond the scope of the journal will be also returned to the authors by the editorial board generally within 2 weeks. The Journal reserves the right to edit the language of papers accepted for publication for clarity and correctness, and to make formal changes to ensure compliance with AGEB’s style. Authors have the opportunity to review such changes in the proofs.