Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2024; 62(12): 2039-2048
DOI: 10.1055/a-2435-4888
Originalarbeit

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct (EUS-PD) in postoperative anastomotic stenosis after previous pancreatic resection

Endoskopische Ultrasonografie-geführte Drainage des Pankreasgangs (EUS-PD) bei postoperativer Anastomosenstenose nach vorheriger Pankreasresektion
Uwe Will
1   Dept. of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Diabetology and General Internal Medicine, Municipal Hospital (“SRH Wald-Klinikum”), Gera, Germany
,
Frank Füldner
1   Dept. of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Diabetology and General Internal Medicine, Municipal Hospital (“SRH Wald-Klinikum”), Gera, Germany
,
Theresa Buechner
2   Municipal Hospital (“SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera”); Dept. of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Diabetology and General Internal Medicine, Gera, Germany
,
Frank Meyer
3   Dept. of General, Abdominal, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Otto-von-Guericke University with University Hospital, Magdeburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim

As an alternative instead of a repeat surgical intervention, results (feasibility, safety, and technical and clinical success rate) of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) in a consecutive patient cohort because of symptomatic postoperative anastomotic stenosis as part of a unicenter observational study in daily clinical practice are presented.

Patients and Methods

EUS-guided puncture (19-G needle) of the pancreatic duct, pancreaticography, and advancement of a guide wire (0.035 inches) via the anastomosis into the small intestine after previous dilatation of the transgastric access site (using ring knife): 1. if possible, balloon dilatation of the anastomosis and placement of a prosthesis as a gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy (“ring drainage”, “gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy”); 2. if not possible (frustrating advancement of the guide wire), again, dilatation of the transgastric access site (using ring knife) and balloon dilatation with a following transgastric placement of a prosthesis (pancreaticogastrostomy).

Results

Out of the complete consecutive patient series with EUS-PD (n=119 cases) from 2004 to 2015, 34 patients (28.5%) were found with a medical history significant for previous surgical intervention at the pancreas who were approached using EUS-PD: in detail, pancreatic head resection in 1.) chronic pancreatitis (n=21; 61.8%) and 2.) malignant tumor lesions (n=13; 38.2%), resp. Pancreaticography was achieved in all subjects (n=34/34; rate, 100%). In 9/34 cases, a sufficient flow of contrast media via the anastomotic segment was detected; therefore, drainage was not placed. In the remaining 25 cases, the primary technical success (successful placement of drainage) rate was 64% (n=16/25 cases). In 9/25 patients, only dilatation using the passage of a ring knife over the guide wire and a balloon was performed. In detail, stent insertion was either not necessary because of good contrast flow via anastomosis (n=4) or not successful because of dislocation of the guide wire (n=5). However, these nine subjects underwent reintervention: in five patients, ring drainage (n=3) and transgastric drainage (n=2) were achieved, resulting in the definitive technical (drainage placement) success rate of 84% (n=21/25). In further detail, the two different techniques of drainage insertion such as pancreaticogastrostomy and gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy (ring drainage) were used in 11 patients (plastic stent, n=8; metal stent, n=3 [biliary wallstent, n=2; LAMS, n=1]) and ten subjects, resp.

Finally, long-term clinical success was 92% (n=23/25).

Overall, there were complications in 6/34 individuals (rate, 17.6%): bleeding, pressing ulcer by the stent, abscess within the lower sac, postinterventional pseudocyst (n=1 each), and paraluminal collection of contrast medium (n=2).

Conclusion

Alternative EUS-PD is feasible and safe and can avoid surgical intervention; this can result in a distinct improvement in the quality of life, including an acceptable interventional risk. Because of the high technical demands, EUS-PD should only be performed in centers of interventional EUS, with great expertise in this field. Further clinical long-term observation, greater patient cohorts, evaluation of procedural knowledge and data, and further technical advances are required.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Als Alternative zur nochmaligen Operation werden die klinischen Ergebnisse (Machbarkeit, Sicherheit, technische und klinische Erfolgsrate) der EUS-geführten Pankreasgangdrainage (EUS-PD) bei symptomatischer postoperativer Anastomosenstenose an einer konsekutiven Patientenkohorte im Rahmen einer klinisch-systematischen unizentrischen Observationsstudie in täglicher klinischer Praxis vorgestellt.

Patienten und Methoden

EUS-gestützte Punktion (19-G-Nadel) des Pankreasganges, Pankreatikographie, Vorschub eines Führungsdrahtes (0,035 Inch) in Richtung und über die Anastomose in den Dünndarm nach vorheriger Dilatation des transgastrischen Zugangsweges (mittels Ringmesser): 1. wenn möglich, Ballondehnung der Anastomose und Protheseneinlage i.S. einer Gastropancreaticojejunostomie („Ringdrainage“); 2. wenn nicht möglich (frustraner Drahtvorschub): Erweiterung des transgastrischen Zuganges (mittels Ringmesser) und Ballondehnung mit folgender transgastrischer Prothesenanlage (Pancreaticogastrostomie).

Ergebnisse

Von 2004–2015 wurden aus einer kompletten EUS-PD-Patientenserie von 119 Patienten 34 Fälle (28,5%) mit Z.n. Op (Pankreaskopfresektion 1. bei chronischer Pankreatitis [n=21; 61,8%], 2. wegen malignen Tumors [n=13; 38,2%]) einer EUS-PD-Patientenserie zugeführt. Die Pankreatikographie gelang bei n=34/34 (100%). In 9/34 Fällen war ein suffizienter KM-Abfluss über die Anastomose erkennbar, auf eine Drainage wurde daher verzichtet. Bei den verbleibenden 25 Patienten lag die technische Erfolgsrate einer effektiven initialen Drainageanlage bei 64% (n=16/25).

Bei 9/25 Patienten wurde nur eine Dilatation mit Ringmesserpassage über den Draht und Ballon durchgeführt. Im Detail war eine Stentinsertion entweder nicht notwendig wegen guten KM-Abflusses über die Anastomose (n=4) oder nicht erfolgreich wegen Drahtdislokation (n=5). Diese 9 Individuen wurden einer Reintervention unterzogen: Bei fünf Patienten wurde eine Ringdrainage (n=3) und transgastrische Drainage (n=2) erreicht, resultierend in einem definitiven technischen Erfolg (Drainageplatzierung) von 84% (n=21/25).

Zwei verschiedene Drainagetechniken wie die Pancreaticogastrostomie und die Gastropancreaticojejunostomie (Ringdrainage) wurden bei 11 Patienten (Plastik-Stent: n=8; Metallstent: n=3 [biliärer Wallstent: n=2; “lumen-apposing metal stent” [LAMS]: n=1]) bzw. in 10 Fällen angewandt. Die letztendliche klinische Langzeit-Erfolgsrate war 92% (n=23/25).

Insgesamt traten Komplikationen bei 6/34 Individuen auf (Rate: 17,6%): Blutung, Stent-bedingtes Druckulkus, Bursaabszess, postinterventionelle Pseudozyste (jeweils n=1) und paraluminale KM-Ansammlung (n=2).

Schlussfolgerung

Die EUS-PD stellt hierfür eine geeignete alternative, minimal-invasive Therapieoption für die Patienten dar, um eine erneute Op zu vermeiden. Aufgrund der hohen technischen Anforderungen sollte die EUS-PD-Patientenserie nur Zentren mit entsprechender Expertise der interventionellen EUS vorbehalten bleiben. Eine weitere Evaluierung des Verfahrens durch größere Patientenserien, Langzeit-Beobachtungen sowie technische Verbesserungen sind notwendig.

Keywords

EUS-guided transluminal drainage of the pancreatic duct (EUS-PD) - enlargement of the pancreatic duct - retention of the pancreatic duct - ERCP - consecutive unicenter patient cohort - systematic clinical prospective observational study (real-world data) - feasibility - safety - quality assurance

Schlüsselwörter

EUS-geführte transluminale Drainage des Pankreasgangs (EUS-PD) - Vergrößerung des Pankreasgangs - Stau des Pankreasgangs - ERCP - konsekutive „Unicenter“-Patientenkohorte - systematische klinische prospektive Observationsstudie („real-world"-Daten) - Machbarkeit - Sicherheit - Qualitätssicherung


Publication History

Received: 05 March 2024

Accepted after revision: 30 September 2024

Article published online:
06 December 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Chauhan S, Forsmark CE. Pain management in chronic pancreatitis: A treatment algorithm. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 323-335
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Cotton PB. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2012; 22: 587-599
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Díte P, Ruzicka M, Zboril V. et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing endoscopic and surgical therapy for chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 553-558
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Dumonceau JM, Delhaye M, Tringali A. et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 784-800
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Freeman ML. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2012; 22: 567-586
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hoffmeister A, Mayerle J. Chronic Pancreatitis German Society of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS). et al. S3-Consensus guidelines on definition, etiology, diagnosis and medical, endoscopic and surgical management of chronic pancreatitis German Society of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS). Z Gastroenterol 2012; 50: 1176-1224
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Nguyen-Tang T, Dumonceau JM. Endoscopic treatment in chronic pancreatitis, timing, duration and type of intervention. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24 (03) 281-298
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Barkay O, Sherman S, McHenry L. et al. Therapeutic EUS assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after failed pancreatic duct cannulation at ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71 (07) 1166-1173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Brauer BC, Chen YK, Fukami N. et al. Single-operator EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for difficult pancreaticobiliary access (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 471-479
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ergun M, Aouattah T, Gillain C. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage of pancreatic duct obstruction: long-term outcome. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 518-525
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Fujii LL, Topazian MD, Abu Dayyeh BK. et al. EUS-guided pancreatic duct intervention: outcomes of a single tertiary-care referral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 854-864.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kahaleh M, Hernandez AJ, Tokar J. et al. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy: analysis of its efficacy to drain inaccessible pancreatic ducts. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 224-230
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kurihara T, Itoi T, Sofuni A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with malignant and benign pancreatic duct obstructions. Dig Endosc 2013; 25 (Suppl. 02) 109-116
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 François E, Kahaleh M, Giovannini M. et al. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56 (01) 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mallery S, Matlock J, Freeman ML. EUS-guided rendezvous drainage of obstructed biliary and pancreatic ducts: Report of 6 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 100-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Shah JN, Marson F, Weilert F. et al. Single-operator, single-session EUS-guided anterograde cholangiopancreatography in failed ERCP or inaccessible papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 56-64
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tessier G, Bories E, Arvanitakis M. et al. EUS-guided pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatobulbostomy for the treatment of pain in patients with pancreatic ductal dilatation inaccessible for transpapillary endoscopic therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 233-241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Will U, Fueldner F, Thieme AK. et al. Transgastric pancreatography and EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14: 377-382
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Will U, Füldner F, Reichel A. et al. EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct (EUPD)--promising therapeutic alternative to surgical intervention in case of symptomatic retention of the pancreatic duct and unsuccessful ERP. Zentralbl Chir 2014; 139: 318-325
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Harada N, Kouzu T, Arima M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatography: a case report. Endoscopy 1995; 27: 612-615
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Giovannini M. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: ready for prime time?. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 865-867
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Fujii-Lau LL, Levy MJ. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015; 22 (01) 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Itoi T, Yamao K. EUS 2008 Working Group. EUS 2008 Working Group document: evaluation of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69 (02) 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Yamao K. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69 (02) 194-199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Will U, Reichel A, Fueldner F. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for patients with symptomatic obstruction and enlargement of the pancreatic duct. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 1 (46) 13140-13151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Malleo G, Vollmer Jr CM. Postpancreatectomy Complications and Management. Surg Clin North Am 2016; 96: 1313-1336
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Morgan KA, Fontenot BB, Harvey NR. et al. Revision of anastomotic stenosis after pancreatic head resection for chronic pancreatitis: is it futile?. HPB (Oxford) 2010; 12 (03) 211-216
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Sukharamwala PB, Patel KD, Teta AF. et al. Long-term Outcomes Favor Duodenum-preserving Pancreatic Head Resection over Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Am Surg 2015; 81: 909-914
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Hackert T, Büchler MW. Management of postoperative pancreatic fistula. Chirurg 2015; 86: 519-524
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Harnoss JC, Ulrich AB, Harnoss JM. et al. Use and results of consensus definitions in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2014; 155 (01) 47-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Reid-Lombardo KM, Ramos-De la Medina A, Thomsen K. et al. Long-term anastomotic complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign diseases. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11 (12) 1704-1711
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar