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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Therapeutic percutaneous aspiration of pancreatic pseudocysts

The therapeutic efficacy and safety of percutaneous aspiration of chronic pancreatic pseudocysts was evaluated. Eight patients underwent aspiration a total of ten times. Permanent resolution was obtained in two patients and a third nonsurgical candidate was offered an alternative therapeutic modality. This procedure is simple, rapid, and safe and could become the initial approach to selected patients with a chronic 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.     

Treatment and outcome in pancreatic pseudocysts

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic pseudocyst is a common complication of both acute and chronic pancreatitis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications of different treatment regimens. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients > or =15 years of age admitted to Lund University Hospital from 1994 to 2003 with pancreatic pseudocysts were analysed retrospectively. Pseudocysts were defined according to the Atlanta classification. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (29 M (66%), mean age 55+/-14 years) were included in the study, and all were subjected to treatment on 88 occasions. Mean size of pseudocysts at diagnosis was 9.6+/-6.8 cm (1.5-40 cm). Recurrence after treatment was 1.0+/-1.1 times (range 0-4). No difference was found in recurrence rate or pseudocyst size when comparing conservative versus interventional treatment, but patient weight was higher (p=0.013) and acute pancreatitis was more frequent (p=0.046) in conservatively treated patients. Surgical treatment tended to be associated with a lower recurrence rate as compared with percutaneous treatments. The rate of hospital admissions was a median 3 (0-16) and median length of stay (LOS) was 12 days (0-141 days). Six patients (14%) had complications and 3 died (7%). Pseudocysts > or =8 cm did not differ significantly from smaller pseudocysts regarding the choice of conservative treatment, LOS, recurrence and gastrointestinal obstruction, but there was a trend towards more complications in the group with larger pseudocysts (5 versus 1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic pseudocysts require frequent hospital admissions and repeated treatments. Larger pseudocysts do not imply more recurrences. The lowest recurrence rate overall was seen after open surgery.     

Treatment and outcome in pancreatic pseudocysts

Objective. Pancreatic pseudocyst is a common complication of both acute and chronic pancreatitis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications of different treatment regimens. Material and methods. All patients ≥15 years of age admitted to Lund University Hospital from 1994 to 2003 with pancreatic pseudocysts were analysed retrospectively. Pseudocysts were defined according to the Atlanta classification. Results. Forty-four patients (29 M (66%), mean age 55±14 years) were included in the study, and all were subjected to treatment on 88 occasions. Mean size of pseudocysts at diagnosis was 9.6±6.8 cm (1.5–40 cm). Recurrence after treatment was 1.0±1.1 times (range 0–4). No difference was found in recurrence rate or pseudocyst size when comparing conservative versus interventional treatment, but patient weight was higher (p=0.013) and acute pancreatitis was more frequent (p=0.046) in conservatively treated patients. Surgical treatment tended to be associated with a lower recurrence rate as compared with percutaneous treatments. The rate of hospital admissions was a median 3 (0–16) and median length of stay (LOS) was 12 days (0–141 days). Six patients (14%) had complications and 3 died (7%). Pseudocysts ≥8 cm did not differ significantly from smaller pseudocysts regarding the choice of conservative treatment, LOS, recurrence and gastrointestinal obstruction, but there was a trend towards more complications in the group with larger pseudocysts (5 versus 1). Conclusions. Patients with pancreatic pseudocysts require frequent hospital admissions and repeated treatments. Larger pseudocysts do not imply more recurrences. The lowest recurrence rate overall was seen after open surgery.     

An endoscopic perspective on pancreatic pseudocysts

Significant advances in endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical techniques have transformed the management of pancreatic pseudocysts. The present review focuses upon advances in the endoscopic management of pseudocysts and incorporation of these techniques into an overall management approach. Findings with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography often guide the choice of drainage method. Endoscopic drainage can be achieved through the transpapillary or transmural routes. EUS has increasingly become an integral part of transmural pseudocyst drainage.     

假性胰腺囊肿的内镜治疗

目的 观察经十二指肠乳头引流治疗胰腺假性囊肿的疗效以及并发症，探讨新的微创治疗方法。方法 选择胰腺假性囊肿患者8例，均有2次以上外科手术史，再次外科手术难度较大。经内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)后，十二指肠乳头、主胰管括约肌切开，行内引流管置人或主胰管探条扩张治疗，囊肿消失后经内镜取出内引流管。结果 ERCP提示，3例囊肿与主胰管相通，l例囊肿压迫造成胆总管下段狭窄梗阻。置入内引流管5例；探条扩张治疗3例。术后l～4个月囊肿完全消失7例；l例囊肿缩小约l／3，临床症状消失，随访6个月囊肿未再缩小，转外科手术治疗。术后2例出现一过性血、尿淀粉酶升高，无严重并发症发生。结论：ERCP及其派生的治疗技术，治疗胰腺假性囊肿有效、安全，可作为胰腺假性囊肿的微创治疗方法。