Endosc Int Open 2015; 03(02): E130-E133
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390890
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

A multi-institutional survey on the practice of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided pseudocyst drainage in the Asian EUS group

Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh
1  Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
,
Lawrence Khek Yu Ho
2  Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
,
Vinay Kumar Dhir
3  Baldota Institute of Digestive Sciences, Mumbai, India
,
Zhen Dong Jin
4  Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Mitsuhiro Kida
5  Department of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University East Hospital, Sagamihara, Japan
,
Dong Wan Seo
6  Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Centre, Seoul, Korea
,
Hsui Po Wang
7  Department of Gastroenterology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
,
Ai Ming Yang
8  Department of Gastroenterology, Beijing Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
,
Kenneth Frank Binmoeller
9  Interventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
,
Shyam Varadarajulu
10  Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, Florida, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 07 July 2014

accepted after revision 30 September 2014

Publication Date:
12 December 2014 (eFirst)

  

Background: There is a lack of consensus on how endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided pseudocyst drainage should be performed. This survey was carried out amongst members of the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasonography Group (AEG) to describe their practices in performing this procedure.

Methods: This was an Asia wide multi-institutional survey amongst members of the Asian EUS group conducted between November and December 2013. The responses to a 19-question survey with regard to the practice of pseudocyst drainage were obtained.

Results: In total, 19 endoscopists responded to the questionnaire and the mean (SD) number of procedures performed by each endoscopist was 87.95 (40); 42.2 % believed that prior endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is required and pancreatic duct stenting is indicated in patients with pancreatic duct disruption; 47.4 % used tapered catheters for track dilation and 42.1 % used the cystotome; 84.1 % would dilate the track up to 8 to 10 mm in size. Metallic stents were used by 10.5 % of the respondents and transcystic catheters were employed by 26.3 %. Those who were more experienced in the procedure tended to use the cystotome more frequently (P = 0.02) and removed the stents in less than 3 months after insertion (P = 0.011).

Conclusion: This was the first Asia wide survey in the practice of pseudocyst drainage. There were wide variations in practice and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for management of this condition. There is also a pressing need for establishment of a consensus for safe practices.

Appendix