Comparative outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with minimal necrosis: a retrospective analysis.
{"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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7322,"journal":{"name":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","volume":"87 1","pages":"1-5"},"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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
