胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿的超声内镜下治疗进展

胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿的治疗方法不断推陈出新,近年来超声内镜技术逐渐趋于成熟,目前已成为胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿非手术治疗的主要方法之一.本文通过系统回顾胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿的超声内镜下治疗进展,希望有助于临床工作者对胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿超声内镜下治疗有一个更全面的理解和认识,有利于胰腺假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿超声内镜下治疗在临床工作中的应用和普及.     

Therapeutic strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts: experience in Taiwan

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A retrospective study of Chinese patients with pancreatic pseudocysts to compare the results between non-conservative and conservative treatments, and the use of serial serum amylase and imaging in monitoring treatment success. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and sixty-two pseudocyst patients, treated between 1974 and 2003, were divided into two groups, conservative treatment and interventions (percutaneous needle drainage, internal drainage, or resection), and treatment results for these groups compared. RESULTS: Ninety-one cases (56%) showed spontaneous pseudocyst resolution (mean duration to resolution, 33.4 days). Pseudocyst size was less than 5cm in 86 of these cases (94.5%). Excellent symptomatic responses after aggressive treatment were noted in 68 of 71 patients (93.1%) with pseudocysts larger than 5 cm. All percutaneous tube drainage patients had pseudocyst resolution when the pseudocyst size was less than 5 cm. Hyperamylasemia was noted in 114 cases (70.4%) at diagnosis and returned to normal range in those patients whose cysts underwent spontaneous resolution or who had successful operations. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic pseudocysts smaller than 5 cm should have conservative treatment or percutaneous needle drainage. Larger pseudocysts should be treated aggressively. Serum amylase and ultrasound examinations are important to evaluate the occurrence of spontaneous resolution or the need for surgical intervention.     

Diagnosis of pancreatic abscess via percutaneous aspiration

The pre-operative diagnosis of a pancreatic abscess was not considered in a comprehensive review in 1972. However, advances in technology (Ultrasound-US, Computed Tomography-CT) has allowed guided percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) of suspected pancreatic lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and diagnostic ability of PNA to differentiate acute pancreatic inflammatory masses from pancreatic abscess (PA). Thirteen patients underwent PNA after US or CT revealed an acute pancreatic inflammatory mass (12/13 cystic). One patient underwent a second aspiration. Clinical features T°-101.3°F mean (13/13), leukocytosis 14,400 cu/mm (11/13). Aspirated material was gram-stained and examined for bacteria and leukocytes and cultured. Results: PNA was accomplished successfully in all patients. Aspirate revealed bacteria in nine and pancreatic abscess was confirmed at surgery (8) or post-mortem exam (1). Four of five patients in whom no bacteria were visualized had medical resolution, the fifth had continued T° and underwent a second aspiration which diagnosed a PA. PA contained moderate to large number of PML via aspiration. Conclusions: PNA provides a potentially important and safe diagnostic adjunct to earlier accurate differential diagnosis of pancreatic inflammatory masses from pancreatic abscess.     

Management of pancreatic pseudocysts

Opinion statement Pancreatic pseudocysts continue to pose a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. They should be observed with regular follow-up by ultrasound examination of the abdomen. The old teaching that cysts more than 6 weeks old or 6 cm in size should be drained is no longer true. Indications for drainage are pain, enlargement of cyst, and complications (infection, hemorrhage, rupture, and obstruction), or suspicion of malignancy. The available forms of therapy include percutaneous drainage, transendoscopic approach, and surgery. The choice of the procedure depends on a number of factors. Those related to the patient include general condition, size, number and location of cysts, presence or absence of communication with the pancreatic duct, presence or absence of infection, and suspicion of malignancy. Endoscopist expertise is a major deciding factor in the choice of therapy. Surgical treatment has been the traditional approach, and it still enjoys a large degree of acceptance in most centers. However, percutaneous catheter drainage is safe, effective, and has recently been advocated as the therapy of first choice. A point of caution: Since radiologic diagnosis of “pseudocysts” may be inaccurate in up to 20% of cases, it is imperative that the physician be sure the cystic structure is not a neoplasm before percutaneous or endoscopic drainage is attempted. There have been no prospective randomized trials that have evaluated the results of the three major modalities of therapy (percutaneous, endoscopic, and surgical). Before one can recommend percutaneous drainage or endoscopic approach as the preferred initial mode of therapy, further studies are needed.     

Preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma by percutaneous aspiration biopsy

Carcinoma of the pancreas and chronic pancreatitis may be extremely difficult to differentiate by standard diagnostic methods preoperatively as well as at the operating table. Operative pancreatic biopsy may have a high morbidity, rare mortality, and can be misleading. Percutaneous aspiration biopsy may be of great potential benefit. It provides additional histological material not usually available, and an accurate diagnosis of malignancy can be made. In select patients a needless laparotomy may be avoided. It appears to be a safe procedure that should be considered in the evaluation of the patient with suspected pancreatic malignancy in which a mass lesion is demonstrated by ultrasonography, computerized tomography, angiography, or retrograde pancreatography.     

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts

Enlarging pancreatic pseudocysts, as well as those that develop complications such as bleeding, leak, infection, and intestinal or biliary obstruction, require treatment. This treatment is usually surgical and consists of internal or external drainage or, less commonly, excision. Transcutaneous aspiration with or without drain placement has also been reported. We describe four cases of endoscopic cystogastrostomy and cystoduodenostomy undertaken in high risk patients who had either failed previous surgery (two) or were initially refused surgery because of prohibitive operative risk (two). Technique, limitations, and potential use of this procedure are discussed.     

Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts

Techniques of endoscopic pseudocyst management continue to evolve, but the principles of proper patient selection and careful consideration of the available therapeutic options remain unchanged. Endoscopic management is considered first-line therapy in the treatment of symptomatic pseudocysts. Clinicians should be vigilant in the evaluation of all peripancreatic fluid collections to exclude the presence of a pancreatic cystic neoplasm and avoid draining an immature collection. Expectant management with periodic observation should be considered for the minimally symptomatic patients, even after the traditional 6 weeks of maturation. Further, symptoms, complications, and expansion on serial imaging should prompt intervention by endoscopic, surgical, or percutaneous methods. Pseudocysts should only be punctured when the wall has had sufficient time to mature and after pseudoaneurysm has been ruled out by careful imaging. Small to moderately sized pseudocysts (< 4–6 cm) that communicate with the pancreatic duct are good candidates for endoscopic transpapillary stenting. For larger lesions requiring transmural drainage, EUS guidance is preferable, but good results can be achieved with ENL. EUS may be particularly useful in permitting drainage in patients with suspected perigastric varices or if an endoscopically visible bulge is not apparent. Necrosis is a significant factor for a worse outcome; aggressive debridement with nasocystic or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy-cystic catheter lavage plus manual endoscopic techniques for clearing debris should be used. Endoscopic failure, especially in cases with significant necrosis, should be managed operatively. Percutaneous drainage is a good option for immature infected pseudocysts or in patients who are not optimal candidates for other procedures. Close cooperation between endoscopists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and other healthcare providers is paramount in successfully managing these patients.     

Outcome differences after endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis,acute pancreatic pseudocysts,and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND: Comparative outcomes after endoscopic drainage of specific types of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections, defined by using standardized nomenclature, have not been described. This study sought to determine outcome differences after attempted endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections classified as pancreatic necrosis, acute pseudocyst, and chronic pseudocyst. METHODS: Outcomes were retrospectively analyzed for consecutive patients with symptoms caused by pancreatic fluid collections referred for endoscopic transmural and/or transpapillary drainage. RESULTS: Complete endoscopic resolution was achieved in 113 of 138 patients (82%). Resolution was significantly more frequent in patients with chronic pseudocysts (59/64, 92%) than acute pseudocysts (23/31, 74%, p = 0.02) or necrosis (31/43, 72%, p = 0.006). Complications were more common in patients with necrosis (16/43, 37%) than chronic (11/64, 17%, p = 0.02) or acute pseudocysts (6/31, 19%, p = NS). At a median follow-up of 2.1 years after successful endoscopic treatment (resolution), pancreatic fluid collections had recurred in 18 of 113 patients (16%). Recurrences developed more commonly in patients with necrosis (9/31, 29%) than acute pseudocysts (2/23, 9%, p = 0.07) or chronic pseudocysts (7/59, 12%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Successful resolution of pancreatic fluid collections may be achieved endoscopically by an experienced therapeutic endoscopist. Outcomes differ depending on the type of pancreatic fluid collection drained. Further studies of endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections must use defined terminology to allow meaningful comparisons.     

Minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts

A pancreatic pseudocyst(PPC) is typically a complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis, trauma or pancreatic duct obstruction. The diagnosis of PPC can be made if an acute fluid collection persists for 4 to 6 wk and is enveloped by a distinct wall.Most PPCs regress spontaneously and require no treatment, whereas some may persist and progress until complications occur. The decision whether to treat a patient who has a PPC, as well as when and with what treatment modalities, is a difficult one. PPCs can be treated with a variety of methods: percutaneous catheter drainage(PCD), endoscopic transpapillary or transmural drainage, laparoscopic surgery, or open pseudocystoenterostomy. The recent trend in the management of symptomatic PPC has moved toward less invasive approaches such as endoscopic- and image-guided PCD. The endoscopic approach is suitable because most PPCs lie adjacent to the stomach. The major advantage of the endoscopic approach is that it creates a permanent pseudocysto-gastric track with no spillage of pancreatic enzymes. However, given the drainage problems, the monitoring, catheter manipulation and the analysis of cystic content are very difficult or impossible to perform endoscopically, unlike in the PCD approach. Several conditions must be met to achieve the complete obliteration of the cyst cavity.Pancreatic duct anatomy is an important factor in the prognosis of the treatment outcome, and the recovery of disrupted pancreatic ducts is the main prognostic factor for successful treatment of PPC, regardless of the treatment method used. In this article, we review and evaluate the minimally invasive approaches in the management of PPCs.     

Avoiding an overdiagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Thirty-six cases of pancreatic pseudocysts were retrospectively analyzed, to evaluate the clinical features of the pseudocysts which could not be differentiated from the neoplastic cysts until laparotomy. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-one out of 36 cases were diagnosed correctly to be a pseudocyst, in which 10 cases (32.3%) were treated by surgery. Five out of 36 cases were diagnosed to be neoplastic pancreatic cysts (mucinous cystadenoma or cystadenocarcinoma in 4 cases, serous cystadenoma in 1) in which all cases were treated by surgery (100%). To determine the clinical factors contributing to a correct or false diagnosis of pseudocysts, 14 clinical objects were categorized into several factors and analyzed using a contingency table. RESULTS: The clinical factors, including a "history of pancreatitis" (P = 0.070), "upper abdominal pain" (P = 0.083), an "age of less than 42 years" (P = 0.070), and an "elevated serum amylase level on admission" (> or = 200 IU/L, P = 0.067) were all thought to be helpful in establishing a correct diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocyst. In the morphological studies of computed tomography and ultrasonography, "multicystic lesions" (P = 0.045) and "nodular or irregular thickening of the cyst wall" (P = 0.006) significantly mislead us into making a diagnosis of a neoplastic cyst. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the morphological features of a multicystic pattern, with either nodular or irregular thickening of the cyst wall, also belong to the common features of the pancreatic pseudocysts. Since these features tended to be diagnosed as neoplastic, other clinical factors should thus be referred to, in a comprehensive manner, to establish a correct diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocyst.     

Issues in management of pancreatic pseudocysts

Pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) comprise more than 80% of the cystic lesions of the pancreas and cause complications in 7-25% of patients with pancreatitis or pancreatic trauma. The first step in the management of PPs is to exclude a cystic tumor. A history of pancreatitis, no septation, solid components or mural calcification on CT scan and high amylase content at aspiration favor a diagnosis of PP. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided FNAC is a valuable diagnostic aid. Intervention is indicated for PPs which are symptomatic, in a phase of growth, complicated (infected, hemorrhage, biliary or bowel obstruction) or in those occurring together with chronic pancreatitis and when malignancy cannot be unequivocally excluded. The current options include percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopy and surgery. The choice depends on the mode of presentation, the cystic morphology and available technical expertise. Percutaneous catheter drainage is recommended as a temporizing measure in poor surgical candidates with immature, complicated or infected PPs. The limitations include secondary infection and pancreatic fistula in 10-20% of patients which increase complications following eventual definitive surgery. Endoscopic therapy for PPs including cystic-enteric drainage (and transpapillary drainage), is an option for PPs which bulge into the enteric lumen which have a wall thickness of less than 1 cm and the absence of major vascular structures on EUS in the proposed tract or those which communicate with the pancreatic duct above a stricture. Surgical internal drainage remains the gold standard and is the procedure of choice for cysts which are symptomatic or complicated or those having a mature wall,. Being more versatile, a cystojejunostomy is preferred for giant pseudocysts (>15 cm) which are predominantly inframesocolic or are in an unusual location. In PPs with coexisting chronic pancreatitis and a dilated pancreatic duct, duct drainage procedures (such as longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy) should be preferred to a cyst drainage procedure.