Zusammenfassung
Über einen Zeitraum von 5 Jahren wurden alle konsekutiven Patienten in dieser prospektiven
„Single-center”-Observationsstudie dokumentiert, um Machbarkeit und „Outcome” der
Ultraschall(US)- und EUS-geführten Drainage von symptomatischen nicht infizierten
Pankreaspseudozysten und -abszessen als auch des endoskopischen Debridements infizierter
Pankreasnekrosen zu untersuchen. Ergebnisse: Vom 23.3.2002 – 31.12.2008 wurden 147 Patienten (Frauen/Männer = 49 / 98 [1:2,0])
mit Pseudozysten (n = 32), Abszessen (n = 81) und Nekrosen (n = 34) registriert. Die
technische Erfolgsrate bei der US-gestützten externen und der EUS-geführten transmuralen
Drainage war 100 bzw. 97 % (transpapilläre [ERP-gestützte] Drainage: 92,1 %). Während
die Komplikationsrate bei der externen Drainage 3,7 % ausmachte, lag diese Rate bei
der transmuralen/transpapillären Drainage bei 9,6 %/ 0. Späte Komplikationen (> 24
h) wurden bei 6,4 % der Patienten nach transpapillärer Drainage beobachtet (externe/transmurale
Drainage: 5,6 / 19,1 %). Komplikationen in 5 Fällen (Blutung: n = 3; Perforation:
n = 1; Prothesendislolation mit Perforation des terminalen Ileums: n = 1) waren offen-chirurgisch
zu versorgen. Nach einem mittleren Follow-up-Zeitraum von 20,7, 20,9 bzw. 19,4 Monaten
wurde die definitive therapeutische Erfolgsrate mit durchschnittlich 96,2 % für die
Pseudozyste (96,9 %), Abszess (97,5 %) und Nekrose (94,1 %) ermittelt (mittlere Rezidivrate:
15,4 %; Gesamtmortalität: 0,7 %, jedoch ohne interventionsbezogenen Todesfall). Schlussfolgerung: Das US- und Endoskopie-gestützte Management der aufgeführten Pankreasläsionen ist
machbar und geeignet (auch in der täglichen Routine), da es als sicher und effektiv
in erfahrener Hand anzusehen ist.
Abstract
Through a time period of 5 years, all consecutive patients were documented in this
prospective single centre observational clinical study to investigate feasibility
and outcome of ultrasound(US)- and EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic non-infected
pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses as well as the endoscopic debridement of infected
necroses. Results: From 03 / 23 / 2002 to 12 / 31 / 2008, 147 patients (females:males = 49:98 [1:2.0])
with pseudocysts (n = 32), abscesses (n = 81) and necroses (n = 34) were enrolled
in the study. Technical success rate in US-guided external and in EUS-guided transmural
drainage was 100 % and 97.0 %, respectively, whereas that of transpapillary (ERP-guided)
drainage was 92.1 %. While the complication rate in external drainage was 3.7 %, this
rate in transmural and transpapillary drainage was 9.6 % and 0, respectively. Late
complications (> 24 h) were observed in 6.4 % of patients after transpapillary drainage
(external drainage, 5.6 %; transmural drainage, 19.1 %). Complications in 5 cases
(bleeding, n = 3; perforation, n = 1; dislocation of the prosthesis with perforation
of the terminal ileum, n = 1) needed to be approached surgically. After a mean follow-up
period of 20.7 months, 20.9 months, and 19.4 months, the definitive therapeutic success
rate was 96.2 % in average for the three diagnoses such as pseudocyst (96.9 %), abscess
(97.5 %), and necrosis (94.1 %), respectively (recurrency rate, 15.4 % in average;
overall mortality, 0.7 % but no intervention-related death). Conclusion: US- and endoscopy-based management of pancreatic lesions as reported is suitable
and favorable also in daily clinical routine since it is a safe and efficacious approach
in experienced hands.
Key words
pancreas - ultrasound - endoscopy - pancreatitis - abscess
References
1
Antillon M R, Shah R J, Stiegmann G et al.
Single-step EUS-guided transmural drainage of simple and complicated pancreatic pseudocysts.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2006;
63
797-803
2
Baillie J.
Pancreatic pseudocysts (Part I).
Gastrointest Endosc.
2004;
59
873-879
3
Baillie J.
Pancreatic pseudocysts (Part II).
Gastrointest Endosc.
2004;
60
105-113
4
Bhattacharya D, Ammori B J.
Minimally invasive approaches to the management of pancreatic pseudocysts: review
of the literature.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech.
2003;
13
141-148
5
De Palma G D, Galloro G, Puzziello A et al.
Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a long-term follow-up study of 49 patients.
Hepatogastroenterology.
2002;
49
1113-1115
6
Dohmoto M, Akiyama K, Lioka Y.
Endoscopic and endosonographic management of pancreatic pseudocyst: a long-term follow-up.
Rev Gastroenterol Peru.
2003;
23
269-275
7
Giovannini M, Binmoeller K, Seifert H.
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cystogastrostomy.
Endoscopy.
2003;
35
239-245
8
Lopes C V, Pesenti C, Bories E et al.
Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts
and abscesses.
Scand J Gastroenterol.
2007;
42
524-529
9
Norton I D, Clain J E, Wiersema M J et al.
Utility of endoscopic ultrasonography in endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts
in selected patients.
Mayo Clin Proc.
2001;
76
794-798
10
Seewald S, Thonke F, Ang T L et al.
One-step, simultaneous double-wire technique facilitates pancreatic pseudocyst and
abscess drainage (with videos).
Gastrointest Endosc.
2006;
64
805-808
11
Sharma S S, Bhargawa N, Govil A.
Endoscopic Management of Pancreatic Pseudocyst: A Long Term Follow Up.
Endoscopy.
2002;
34
203-207
12
Vosoghi M, Sial S, Garrett B et al.
EUS-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage: review and experience at Harbor-UCLA Medical
Center.
MedGenMed.
2002;
4
2
13
Will U, Wegener C, Graf K I et al.
Differential treatment and early outcome in the interventional endoscopic management
of pancreatic pseudocysts in 27 patients.
World J Gastroenterol.
2006;
12
4175-4178
14
Baron T H, Thaggard W G, Morgan D et al.
Endoscopic therapy of organized pancreatic necrosis.
Gastroenterology.
1996;
111
755-764
15
Seewald S, Groth S, Omar S et al.
Aggressive endoscopic therapy for pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic abcess.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2005;
62
92-100
16
Seifert H, Wehrmann T, Schmitt T et al.
Retroperitoneal endoscopic debridement for infected peripancreatic necrosis.
Lancet.
2000;
356
653-655
17
Connor S, Raraty M G, Howes N et al.
Surgery in the treatment of acute pancreatitis--minimal access pancreatic necrosectomy.
Scand J Surg.
2005;
94
135-142
18
Gotzinger P, Sautner T, Kriwanek S et al.
Surgical treatment for severe acute pancreatitis.
World J Surg.
2002;
26
474-478
19
Mier J, Leon E L, Castillo A et al.
Early versus late necrosectomy in severe necrotizing pancreatitis.
Am J Surg.
1997;
173
71-75
20
Seifert H, Biermer M, Schmitt W et al.
Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy after acute pancreatitis: a multicentre study
with long-term follow-up (the GEPARD Study).
Gut.
2009;
58
1260-1266
21
Horvath K D, Kao L S, Ali A et al.
Laparoscopic assisted percutaneous drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis.
Surg Endosc.
2001;
15
677-682
22
Uhl W, Warshaw A, Imrie C et al.
IAP Guidelines for the surgical management of acute pancreatitis.
Pancreatology.
2002;
2
565-573
23
Seifert H, Faust D, Schmitt T et al.
Transmural drainage of cystic peripancreatic lesions with a new large-channel echo
endoscope.
Endoscopy.
2001;
33
1022-1026
Dr. Frank Meyer
Department of Surgery, University Hospital
Leipziger Straße 44
39120 Magdeburg
Germany
Phone: ++ 49/3 91/6 71 55 00
Fax: ++ 49/3 91/6 71 55 70
Email: Frank.Meyer@med.ovgu.de