Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts offers similar success and complications compared to surgical treatment but with a lower cost

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aim

Pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) are a complication that occurs in acute and chronic pancreatitis. They comprise 75 % of cystic lesions of the pancreas. There are scarce data about surgical versus endoscopic treatment on PPC. The aim of this study was to compare both treatment modalities regarding clinical success, complication rate, recurrence, hospital stay and cost.

Methods

Retrospectively, data obtained prospectively from 2000 to 2012 were analyzed. A PPC was defined as a fluid collection in the pancreatic or peripancreatic area that had a well-defined wall and contained no solid debris or recognizable parenchymal necrosis. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution or a decrease in size of the PPC to 2 cm or smaller.

Results

Overall, 64 procedures in 61 patients were included: 21 (33 %) cases were drained endoscopically guided by EUS and 43 (67 %) cases were drained surgically. The clinical success of the endoscopic group was 90.5 versus 90.7 % for the surgical group (P = 0.7), with a complication rate of 23.8 and 25.6 %, respectively (P = 0.8), and a mortality rate of 0 and 2.3 % for each group, respectively (P = 0.4). The hospital stay was lower for the endoscopic group: 0 (0–10) days compared with 7 (2–42) days in the surgical group (P < 0.0001). Likewise, the cost was lower in the endoscopic group (P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was similar in both groups: 9.5 and 4.5 % respectively (P = 0.59). The two recurrences found in the endoscopic group were associated with stent migration, and the recurrence in the surgical group was due to the type of surgery performed (open drainage).

Conclusion

Endoscopic treatment of PPC offers the same clinical success, recurrence, complication and mortality rate as surgical treatment but with a shorter hospital stay and lower costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bradley EL, Clements JL Jr, Gonzalez AC (1979) The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts: a unified concept of management. Am J Surg 137:135–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Malley VP, Cannon JP, Postier RG (1985) Pancreatic pseudocysts: cause, therapy, and results. Am J Surg 150:680–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aghdassi A, Mayerle J, Kraft M et al (2008) Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts in chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 36:105–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grace PA, Williamson RC (1993) Modern management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Br J Surg 80:573–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang LW, Li ZS, Li SD et al (2009) Prevalence and clinical features of chronic pancreatitis in China: a retrospective multicenter analysis over 10 years. Pancreas 38:248–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Andersson B, Nilsson E, Willner J et al (2006) Treatment and outcome in pancreatic pseudocysts. Scand J Gastroenterol 41:751–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vitas GJ, Sarr MG (1992) Selected management of pancreatic pseudocysts: operative versus expectant management. Surgery 111:123–130

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yeo CJ, Bastidas JA, Lynch-Nyhan A et al (1990) The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts documented by computed tomography. Surg Gynecol Obstet 170:411–417

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehta R, Suvarna D, Sadasivan S et al (2004) Natural course of asymptomatic pancreatic pseudocyst: a prospective study. Indian J Gastroenterol 23:140–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Andren-Sandberg A, Dervenis C (2004) Pancreatic pseudocysts in the 21st century: Part II. Natural history. JOP 5:64–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sandberg AA, Dervenis C (2004) Pancreatic pseudocyst in the 21st century. Part II: natural history. J Pancreas 5:64–70

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bradley EL (2014) The natural and unnatural history of pancreatic fluid collections associated with acute pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 59:908–910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM, Latif S et al (2011) Management of pancreatic fluid collections: a changing of the guard from surgery to endoscopy. Am Surg 77:1650–1655

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Varadarajulu S, Bang J, Sutton B et al (2013) Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 145:583–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aljarabah M, Ammori BJ (2007) Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a systematic review of published series. SurgEndosc 21:1936–1944

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson MD, Walsh RM, Henderson JM et al (2009) Surgical versus nonsurgical management of pancreatic pseudocysts. J Clin Gastroenterol 43:586–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Varadarajulu S, Lopes TL, Wilcox CM et al (2008) EUS versus surgical cyst-gastrostomy for management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 68:649–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Banks P, Bollen T, Dervenis C et al (2013) Classification of acute pancreatitis 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62:102–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Varadarajulu S, Christein J, Tamhane A et al (2008) Prospective randomized trial comparing EUS and EGD for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 68:1102–1111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park D, Lee S, Moon S et al (2009) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus conventional transmural drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts: a prospective randomized trial. Endoscopy 41:842–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Varadarajulu S, Noone TC, Tutuian R et al (2005) Predictors of outcome in pancreatic duct disruption managed by endoscopic transpapillary stent. Gastrointest Endosc 61:568–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Devière J, Antaki F (2008) Disconnected pancreatic tail syndrome: a plea for multidisciplinarity. Gastrointest Endosc 67:680–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Varadarajulu S, Rana SS, Bhasin DK (2013) Endoscopic therapy for pancreatic duct leaks and disruptions. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 23:863–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gibbs C, Baron T (2005) Outcome following endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections in outpatients. J Clin Gastroenterol 39:634–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dávila-Cervantes A, Gómez F, Chan C et al (2004) Laparoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Endosc 18:1420–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lopes CV, Pesenti C, Bories E et al (2008) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Arq Gastroenterol 45:17–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Bali MA et al (2007) Pancreatic-fluid collections: a randomized controlled trial regarding stent removal after endoscopic transmural drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 65:609–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Krüger M, Scneider AS, Manns MR et al (2006) Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts or abscess after an EUS-guided 1-step procedure for initial access. Gastrointest Endosc 63:409–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhattacharya D, Ammori BJ (2003) Minimally invasive approaches to the management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13:141–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rische S, Riecken B, Degenkolb J et al (2013) Transmural endoscopic necrosectomy of infected pancreatic necroses and drainage of infected pseudocysts: a tailored approach. Scand J Gastroenterol 48:231–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Trevino J, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S (2010) Successful stenting in ductal disruption favorably impacts treatment outcomes in patients undergoing transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 25:526–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA et al (2011) Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2080–2088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico

    Angela Saul, Miguel Angel Ramirez Luna, Francisco Valdovinos Andraca, Javier Elizondo & Felix Tellez Avila

  2. Pancreas Clinic, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico

    Miguel Angel Ramirez Luna, Carlos Chan, Luis Uscanga, Francisco Valdovinos Andraca, Jorge Hernandez Calleros & Felix Tellez Avila

Authors
  1. Angela Saul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel Angel Ramirez Luna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luis Uscanga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francisco Valdovinos Andraca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jorge Hernandez Calleros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Javier Elizondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Felix Tellez Avila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Saul.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Angela Saul, Miguel Angel Ramirez Luna, Carlos Chan, Luis Uscanga, Francisco Valdovinos Andraca, Jorge Hernandez Calleros, Javier Elizondo, Felix Tellez Avila report that there is no conflict of interest in this publication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saul, A., Luna, M.A.R., Chan, C. et al. EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts offers similar success and complications compared to surgical treatment but with a lower cost. Surg Endosc 30, 1459–1465 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4351-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4351-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation