Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Transluminal Drainage for Peripancreatic Fluid Collections: Where Are We Now?

Endoscopic drainage for pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) has been increasingly used as a minimally invasive alternative to surgical or percutaneous drainage. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage (EUS-TD) has become the standard of care and a safe procedure for nonsurgical PFC treatment. EUS-TD ensures a safe puncture, avoiding intervening blood vessels. Single or multiple plastic stents (combined with a nasocystic catheter) were used for the treatment of PFCs for EUS-TD. More recently, the use of covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMSs) has provided a safer and more efficient approach route for internal drainage. We focused our review on the best approach and stent to use in endoscopic drainage for PFCs. We reviewed studies of EUS-TD for PFCs based on the original Atlanta Classification, including case reports, case series, and previous review articles. Data on clinical outcomes and adverse events were collected retrospectively. A total of 93 patients underwent EUS-TD of pancreatic pseudocysts using CSEMSs. The treatment success and adverse event rates were 94.6% and 21.1%, respectively. The majority of complications were of mild severity and resolved with conservative therapy. A total of 56 patients underwent EUS-TD using CSEMSs for pancreatic abscesses or infected walled-off necroses. The treatment success and adverse event rates were 87.8% and 9.5%, respectively. EUS-TD can be performed safely and efficiently for PFC treatment. Larger diameter CSEMSs without additional fistula tract dilation for the passage of a standard scope are needed to access and drain for PFCs with solid debris.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) develop secondary to either fluid leakage or liquefaction of pancreatic necrosis following acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, surgery or abdominal trauma. Pancreatic fluid collections include acute fluid collections, acute and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts, pancreatic abscesses and pancreatic necrosis. Before the introduction of linear endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the 1990s and the subsequent development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS-GD) procedures, the available options for drainage in symptomatic PFCs included surgical drainage, percutaneous drainage using radiological guidance and conventional endoscopic transmural drainage. In recent years, it has gradually been recog-nized that, due to its lower morbidity rate compared to the surgical and percutaneous approaches, endoscopic treatment may be the preferred first-line approach for managing symptomatic PFCs. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage has the following advantages, when compared to other alternatives such as surgical, per-cutaneous and non-EUS-guided endoscopic drainage.EUS-GD is less invasive than surgery and therefore does not require general anesthesia. The morbidity rate is lower, recovery is faster and the costs are lower. EUS-GD can avoid local complications related to per-cutaneous drainage. Because the endoscope is placed adjacent to the fluid collection, it can have direct ac-cess to the fluid cavity, unlike percutaneous drainage which traverses the abdominal wall. Complications such as bleeding, inadvertent puncture of adjacent viscera, secondary infection and prolonged periods of drainage with resultant pancreatico-cutaneous fistulae may be avoided. The only difference between EUS and non-EUS drainage is the initial step, namely, gaining access to the pancreatic fluid collection. All the sub-sequent steps are similar, i.e., insertion of guide-wires with fluoroscopic guidance, balloon dilatation of the cystogastrostomy and insertion of transmural stents or nasocystic catheters. With the introduction of the EUS-scope equipped with a large operative channel which permits drainage of the PFCs in "one step", EUS-GD has been increasingly carried out in many tertiary care centers and has expanded the safety and efficacy of this modality, allowing access to and drainage of overly challenging fluid collections. However, the nature of the PFCs determines the outcome of this procedure. The technique and review of current literature regarding EUS-GD of PFCs will be discussed.     

Pancreatic fluid collections: Physiology,natural history,and indications for drainage

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are a common manifestation of pancreatitis and can be seen in up to 50% of cases. Advances in cross-sectional imaging techniques have led to a greater understanding of the natural history of PFCs. This, combined with a lack of uniformity in the nomenclature of PFCs, has led to the revised Atlanta Criteria for pancreatic fluid collections, which designates 4 main types: acute peri-PFC (APFC), postnecrotic PFC (PNPFC), pancreatic pseudocyst, and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Each of these fluid collections can be either sterile or infected. When present for >4 weeks from onset of acute pancreatitis, APFCs and PNPFCs become pseudocysts and WOPN, respectively. Rarely, cystic neoplasms can be mistaken for fluid collections, and distinguishing between the two is essential. APFC is common, the majority is self-limited, and therefore, treatment is not recommended unless infected. Pseudocysts have a mature wall and no intracystic necrosis, and can cause symptoms via compressive effects. Multiple factors of pseudocysts such as size, duration, and pancreatic ductal anatomy have been evaluated in attempts to predict their natural history. The presence of symptoms or infection should be the main indication for drainage, whereas size and duration are no longer strong indications for intervention. PNPFCs are seen in the setting of acute pancreatitis with necrosis; they have an unclear natural history, and when present for >4 weeks, they become WOPN. WOPN have mature walls and a variable amount of intracystic necrosis and debris. Distinguishing WOPN from pseudocysts is important and has therapeutic implications. PFCs can be diagnosed with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in most cases, although magnetic resonance imaging provides superior distinction of pancreatic ductal anatomy, necrosis, and intracystic debris and solid material. Endoscopic ultrasonography offers highly accurate views of fluid collections and is especially useful when endoscopic drainage is planned. Stronger adherence to uniform nomenclature, and more natural history studies for each type of PFC, will help us better understand and manage PFCs.     

Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collectionsrevisited

The development of pancreatic fluid collections(PFC) is one of the most common complications of acute severe pancreatitis. Most of the acute pancreatic fluid collections resolve and do not require endoscopic drainage. However, a substantial proportion of acute necrotic collections get walled off and may require drainage. Endoscopic drainage of PFC is now the preferred mode of drainage due to reduced morbidity and mortality as compared to surgical or percutaneous drainage. With the introduction of new metal stents, the efficiency of endoscopic drainage has improved and the task of direct endoscopic necrosectomy has be-come easier. The requirement of re-intervention is less with new metal stents as compared to plastic stents. However, endoscopic drainage is not free of adverse events. Severe complications including bleeding, perforation, sepsis and embolism have been described with endoscopic approach to PFC. Therefore, the endoscopic management of PFC is a multidisciplinary affair and involves interventional radiologists as well as GI surgeons to deal with unplanned adverse events and failures. In this review we discuss the recent advances and controversies in the endoscopic management of PFC.     

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis: New technical developments

In the last decades,the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and necrosis occurring in the clinical context of acute and chronic pancreatitis has shifted towards minimally invasive endoscopic interventions.Surgical procedures can be avoided in many cases by using endoscopically placed,Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided techniques and drainages.Endoscopic ultrasound enables the placement of transmural plastic and metal stents or nasocystic tubes for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections.The development of selfexpanding metal stents and exchange free delivering systems have simplified the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.This review will discuss available therapeutic techniques and new developments.     

Lumen apposing metal stents for pancreatic fluid collections:Recognition and management of complications

For patients recovering from acute pancreatitis,the development of a pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) predicts a more complex course of recovery,and introduces difficult management decisions with regard to when,whether,and how the collection should be drained.Most PFCs resolve spontaneously and drainage is indicated only in pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis when the collections are causing symptoms and/or local complications such as biliary obstruction.Historical approaches to PFC drainage have included surgical (open or laparoscopic cystgastrostomy or pancreatic debridement),and the placement of percutaneous drains.Endoscopic drainage techniques have emerged in the last several years as the preferred approach for most patients,when local expertise is available.Lumen-apposing metal stents(LAMS) have recently been developed as a tool to facilitate potentially safer and easier endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections,and less commonly,for other indications,such as gallbladder drainage.Physicians considering LAMS placement must be aware of the complications most commonly associated with LAMS including bleeding,migration,buried stent,stent occlusion,and perforation.Because of the patient complexity associated with severe pancreatitis,management of pancreatic fluid collections can be a complex and multidisciplinary endeavor.Successful and safe use of LAMS for patients with pancreatic fluid collections requires that the endoscopist have a full understanding of the potential complications of LAMS techniques,including how to recognize and manage expected complications.     

Endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: Assessment of the procedure,technical details and review of the literature

Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections(PFC) has become increasingly popular and become first line management option in many centers. Use of therapeutic echoendoscopes has greatly increased the applicability of EUS guided transmural drainage. Drainage is indicated in symptomatic PFCs, PFC related infection, bleed, luminal obstruction, fistulization and biliary obstruction. EUS guided transmural drainage of PFCs is preferred in patients with non bulging lesions, portal hypertension, bleeding tendency and in those whom conventional drainage has failed. In the present decade significant progress has been made in minimally invasive endoscopic techniques. There are newer stent designs, access devices and techniques for more efficient drainage of PFCs. In this review, we discuss the EUS guided drainage of PFCs in acute pancreatitis.     

Endoscopic management of complications of acute pancreatitis: an update on the field

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Acute pancreatitis is a frequent, nonmalignant gastrointestinal disorder leading to hospital admission. For its severe form and subsequent complications, minimally invasive and endoscopic procedures are being used increasingly, and are subject to rapid technical advances.

Areas covered: Based on a systematic literature search in PubMed, medline, and Web-of-Science, we discuss the currently available treatment strategies for endoscopic therapy of pancreatic pseudocysts, walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS), and compare the efficacy and safety of plastic and metal stents. A special focus is placed on studies directly comparing different stent types, including lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and clinical outcomes when draining pseudocysts or WONs. The clinical significance and endoscopic treatment options for DPDS are also discussed.

Expert commentary: Endoscopic therapy has become the treatment of choice for different types of pancreatic and peripancreatic collections, the majority of which, however, require no intervention. The use of LAMS has facilitated drainage and necrosectomy in patients with WON or pseudocysts. Serious complications remain a problem in spite of high technical and clinical success rates. DPDS is an increasingly recognized problem in the presence of pseudocysts or WONs but evidence for endoscopic stent placement in this situation remains insufficient.     

Long-term results after endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections

Aims: To determine the immediate and long‐term results of endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections. Methods: The data of 80 patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (mean diameter: 11.7 cm, range 3–20; pseudocysts: 24/80, abscess: 20/80, infected walled‐off necrosis: 36/80) referred for endoscopic management from October 1997 to March 2008 were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Endoscopic drainage techniques included endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided aspiration (2/80), EUS‐guided transenteric drainage (70/80) and non‐EUS‐guided drainage across a spontaneous transenteric fistula (8/80). Endoscopic necrosectomy was carried out in 49/80 (abscesses: 14/20; infected necrosis: 35/36). Procedural complications were bleeding (12/80), perforation (7/80), portal air embolism (1/80) and Ogilvie Syndrome (1/80). Initial technical success was achieved in 78/80 (97.5%) and clinical resolution of the collections was achieved endoscopically in 67/80 (83.8%), with surgery required in 13/80 (perforation: four; endoscopically inaccessible areas: two; inadequate drainage: seven). Within 6 months five patients required surgery due to recurrent fluid collections; over a mean follow up of 31 months, surgery was required in four more patients due to recurrent collections as a consequence of underlying pancreatic duct abnormalities that could not be treated endoscopically. The long‐term success of endoscopic treatment was 58/80 (72.5%). Conclusions: Endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections is safe and effective, with excellent immediate and long‐term results. Endoscopic necrosectomy has a risk of serious complications. The underlying pancreatic duct abnormalities must be addressed to prevent recurrence of fluid collections.     

Successful stenting in ductal disruption favorably impacts treatment outcomes in patients undergoing transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections

Background and Aim: The role of pancreatic duct (PD) stenting in patients undergoing endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) remains unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of PD stenting on treatment success in patients undergoing endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC. Methods: This is a retrospective follow‐up study of all patients who underwent endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided transmural drainage of PFC during a 5‐year period. Double‐pigtail stents were deployed in all patients; in addition, nasocystic catheters were deployed in those with abscess/necrosis. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram was attempted whenever feasible in all patients, and pancreatic stents were placed when the duct disruption could be bridged. Success was defined as an improvement in symptoms and resolution of PFC upon follow‐up computed tomography at 8 weeks. Results: Of the 110 patients who underwent PFC drainage, 40 (36%) underwent simultaneous PD stenting. Treatment was successful in 95 of the 110 patients (86%). The PFC types were: pseudocyst (62%), necrosis (20%), and abscess (18%). The median duration of follow up was 9.9 months. Those who underwent PD stenting were significantly more likely to have treatment success than those who did not undergo PD stenting (97.5% vs 80%; risk ratio [RR]_crude = 1.48, P = 0.01). In the multivariable analysis, this association remained significant (RR_adjusted = 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.29, P = 0.036), even after adjusting for the etiology of pancreatitis, type and location of PFC, luminal compression at endoscopy, enteral nutrition, white blood cell count, and number of endoscopic interventions. Conclusions: Transpapillary PD stenting improves treatment outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC.     

CXC receptor 1 is overexpressed in endoscopy-negative gastroesophageal reflux disease

Abstract

Objective. Transmural endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy have become favored treatment modes for infected pancreatic pseudocysts and necroses. In this analysis, we summarize the outcome of 40 patients with complicated course of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic treatment. Material and methods. From January 2006 through May 2011, 40 patients of our department with complicated pancreatitis were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients underwent endosonographic transgastric puncture followed by wire-guided insertion of one or more double pigtail stents. Patients with extensive necroses were treated repeatedly with transgastric necrosectomy. Treatment success was determined by clinical, laboratory, and radiological parameters. Results. Nine patients had interstitial pancreatitis (IP) with pancreatic pseudocysts. Thirty-one patients had necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) with acute pancreatic necroses (n = 4) or walled-off pancreatic necrosis (n = 27). All patients with IP and nine patients with NP had pseudocysts without solid material and underwent transgastric drainage only. In this group major complications occurred in 11.1% and no mortality was observed. Twenty-two NP patients were treated with additional repeated necrosectomy. In patients with localized peripancreatic necroses (n = 10) no need of surgery or mortality was observed, major complications occurred in 10%. In patients with extensive necroses reaching the lower abdomen (n = 12), three needed subsequent surgery and three died. Conclusions. Transgastric endoscopy is an effective minimally invasive procedure even in patients with advanced pancreatic necroses. Complication rate is low particularly in patients with sole pseudocysts or localized necroses. The extent of the fluid collections and necroses is a new predictive parameter for the outcome of the patients.     

JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis:surgical management

Acute pancreatitis represents a spectrum of disease ranging from a mild, self-limited course to a rapidly progressive, severe illness. The mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis exceeds 20%, and some patients diagnosed as mild to moderate acute pancreatitis at the onset of the disease may progress to a severe, life-threatening illness within 2–3 days. The Japanese (JPN) guidelines were designed to provide recommendations regarding the management of acute pancreatitis in patients having a diversity of clinical characteristics. This article sets forth the JPN guidelines for the surgical management of acute pancreatitis, excluding gallstone pancreatitis, by incorporating the latest evidence for the surgical management of severe pancreatitis in the Japanese-language version of the evidence-based Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis published in 2003. Ten guidelines are proposed: (1) computed tomography-guided or ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for bacteriology should be performed in patients suspected of having infected pancreatic necrosis; (2) infected pancreatic necrosis accompanied by signs of sepsis is an indication for surgical intervention; (3) patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis should be managed conservatively, and surgical intervention should be performed only in selected cases, such as those with persistent organ complications or severe clinical deterioration despite maximum intensive care; (4) early surgical intervention is not recommended for necrotizing pancreatitis; (5) necrosectomy is recommended as the surgical procedure for infected pancreatic necrosis; (6) simple drainage should be avoided after necrosectomy, and either continuous closed lavage or open drainage should be performed; (7) surgical or percutaneous drainage should be performed for pancreatic abscess; (8) pancreatic abscesses for which clinical findings are not improved by percutaneous drainage should be subjected to surgical drainage immediately; (9) pancreatic pseudocysts that produce symptoms and complications or the diameter of which increases should be drained percutaneously or endoscopically; and (10) pancreatic pseudocysts that do not tend to improve in response to percutaneous drainage or endoscopic drainage should be managed surgically.     

Endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement for inflammatory pancreatic diseases

The role of endoscopic therapy in the management of pancreatic diseases is continuously evolving; at present most pathological conditions of the pancreas are successfully treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangio- pancreatography （ERCP） or endoscopic ultrasound （EUS）, or both. Endoscopic placement of stents has played and still plays a major role in the treatment of chronic pancreatitis, pseudocysts, pancreas divisum, main pancreatic duct injuries, pancreatic fistulae, complications of acute pancreatitis, recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis, and in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. These stents are currently routinely placed to reduce intraductal hypertension, bypass obstructing stones, restore lumen patency in cases with dominant, symptomatic strictures, seal main pancreatic duct disruption, drain pseudocysts or fluid collections, treat symptomatic major or minor papilla sphincter stenosis, and prevent procedure-induced acute pancreatitis. The present review aims at updating and discussing techniques, indications, and results of endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement in acute and chronic inflammatory diseases of the pancreas.     

EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using lumen apposing metal stents: An international,multicenter experience

IntroductionLumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been used increasingly for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). We present an international, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of LAMS in PFCs.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing LAMS placement for PFC at 12 international centers were included (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01522573). Demographics, clinical history, and procedural details were recorded. Technical success was defined as successful LAMS deployment. Clinical success was defined as PFC resolution at three-month follow-up.Results192 patients were included (140 males (72.9%), mean-age 53.8 years), with mean follow-up of 4.2 months ± 3.8. Mean PFC size was 11.9 cm (range 2–25). The median number of endoscopic interventions was 2 (range 1–14). Etiologies for PFC were gallstone (n = 82, 42.7%), alcohol (n = 50, 26%), idiopathic (n = 26, 13.5%), and other (n = 34, 17.7%). Technical success was achieved in 189 patients (98.4%). Clinical success was observed in 125 of 135 patients (92.6%).Adverse events included bleeding (n = 11, 5.7), infection (n = 2, 1%), and perforation (n = 2, 1%). Three or more endoscopy sessions were a positive predictor for PFC resolution and the only significant predictor for AEs.ConclusionLAMS has a high technical and clinical success rate with a low rate of AEs. PFC drainage via LAMS provides a minimally invasive, safe, and efficacious procedure for PFC resolution.     

Endosonography guided management of pancreatic fluid collections

The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis was adopted by international consensus, and is based on actual local and systemic determinants of disease severity. The local determinant is pancreatic necrosis(sterile or infected), and the systemic determinant is organ failure. Local complications of pancreatitis can include acute peri-pancreatic fluid collection, acute necrotic collection, pseudocyst formation, and walledoff necrosis. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) has been increasing utilized in managing these local complications. After performing a Pub Med search, the authors manually applied pre-defined inclusion criteria or a filter to identify publications relevant to EUS and pancreatic collections(PFCs). The authors then reviewed the utility, efficacy, and risks associated with using therapeutic EUS and involved EUS devices in treating PFCs. Due to the development and regulatory approval of improved and novel endoscopic devices specifically designed for transmural drainage of fluid and necrotic debris(access and patency devices), the authors predict continuing evolution in the management of PFCs. We believe that EUS will become an indispensable part of procedures used to diagnose PFCs and perform image-guided interventions. After draining a PFC, the amount of tissue necrosis is the most important predictor of a successful outcome. Hence, it seems logical to classify these collections based on their percentage of necrotic component or debris present when viewed by imaging methods or EUS. Finally, the authors propose an algorithm for managing fluid collections based on their size, location, associated symptoms, internal echogenic patterns, and content.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: What impacts treatment duration?

Background: Peripancreatic fluid collections(PFCs) are complications resulting from acute or chronic pancreatitis and require treatment in certain clinical conditions. The present study aimed to identify the factors influencing the duration of endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts(PPCs), walled-off necrosis(WON), and acute necrotic collections(ANCs). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 68 patients with PFCs who underwent EUS-guided drainag...     

Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts and necrosis

Over the last several years, there have been refinements in the understanding and nomenclature regarding the natural history of acute pancreatitis. Patients with acute pancreatitis frequently develop acute pancreatic collections that, over time, may evolve into pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis. Endoscopic management of these local complications of acute pancreatitis continues to evolve. Treatment strategies range from simple drainage of liquefied contents to repeated direct endoscopic necrosectomy of a complex necrotic collection. In patients with chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic pseudocysts may arise as a consequence of pancreatic ductal obstruction that then leads to pancreatic ductal disruption. In this review, we focus on the indications, techniques and outcomes for endoscopic therapy of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis.     

Unique usage of a partially covered metal stent for drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst via endosonography-guided transcystgastrostomy

Pancreatic pseudocysts are frequent complications of pancreatitis episodes. The current therapeutic modalities for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts include surgical, percutaneous, and endoscopic drainage modalities. Endosonography-assisted endoscopic drainage of these pseudocysts with the placement of multiple plastic or fully covered self-expanding biliary metal stents is becoming more commonly carried out. The present case report discusses the unique and successful drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst with the placement of a partially covered self-expanding metal stent.     

Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis: A two-decade experience

Aim

To determine long-term outcome of endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocyst/walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) without necrosectomy.

Methods

One-hundred and sixty-five pancreatic pseudocysts/WOPN managed endoscopically over a period of 22 years were analyzed retrospectively for technical success, complications, and recurrence.

Results

Symptomatic 118 males and 47 females with mean age of 35.8 years were included. Alcohol was the most common etiology (41.2 %). Transmural endoscopic drainage was done in 144 patients, while 21 patients underwent transpapillary drainage. All the patients were subjected to contrast computed tomography (CT) abdomen or routine/Doppler ultrasound. Endoscopic ultrasound was done in last 11 patients. One or two double pigtail 7 Fr stents were placed when clear watery fluid came out from cyst (130 patients, 78.8 %), and nasocystic drainage (NCD) tubes were placed in addition to two 7 Fr stents when there were frank pus, thick dark fluid, or solid components inside the cyst (35 patients). All these patients settled on this treatment. Thirty-three of 35 patients of WOPN could be managed endoscopically without necrosectomy. Complications occurred in 9.2 % of pseudocysts and 40 % of WOPN. Thirty-five patients were followed up for more than 5 years (3 patients more than 10 years), and 130 patients were followed up for up to 5 years. Recurrence occurred in 8.1 % of pseudocysts and 5.7 % of WOPN.

Conclusion

Majority of pancreatic pseudocysts/WOPN can be managed with endoscopic drainage without necrosectomy with high success, low complication, and recurrence rates.

     

Paediatric acute pancreatitis: Clinical profile and natural history of collections

Background & aimsAcute Pancreatitis (AP) tends to have a benign course in children. However there is a paucity of information with respect to severity of AP in children, the categorization of collections viz., walled off necrosis (WON)& pseudocyst and their natural history & outcomes.MethodsA retrospective medical record review of 187 children with pancreatitis diagnosed and managed at our centre was performed.Results101 children (59% boys, Median age 9yrs) had AP of which 37.6%, 60.4% and 2% had mild, moderately severe and severe AP. 61.4%(62) had PFC at diagnosis; 34%(21) acute pancreatic fluid collections (APFC) and 66%(41) acute necrotic collections (ANC). 52.3%(11of21) of APFC evolved into pseudocysts & 68.2%(28of41) of ANC into WON’s. Drainage was required in 31%(12of39) of persisting collections, more frequently in children with traumatic AP. Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) was done in 6 children and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided cystogastrostomy with placement of plastic or self expanding metal stents (SEMS) in 6 children.ConclusionsModerately severe AP is common in hospitalized children with AP with PFC developing in 61.4%, majority being APFC. 48% of APFC and 32% of ANC will resolve and the rest evolve into pseudocyst or WON. Spontaneous resolution is more likely in children with non -traumatic AP having pseudocysts rather than WON’s.