Fluoroscopy-assisted vs fluoroless endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: A comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: The need for fluoroscopy guidance in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD) of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare general outcomes of EUS-TMD of PFCs under fluoroscopy (F) vs fluoroless (FL). METHODS: This is a comparative study with a retrospective analysis of a prospective and consecutive inclusion database at a tertiary centre, from 2009 to 2015. All patients were symptomatic pseudocyst (PSC) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Two groups were assigned depending on availability of fluoroscopy. The groups were heterogeneous in terms of their demographic characteristics, PFCs and procedure. The main outcome measures included technical and clinical success, incidences, adverse events (AEs), and follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty EUS-TMD of PFCs from 86 EUS-guided drainages were included during the study period. Group F included 26 procedures, PSC 69.2%, WON 30.8%, metal stents 61.5% (46.1% lumen-apposing stent) and plastic stents 38.5%. Group FL included 24 procedures, PSC 37.5%, WON 62.5%, and metal stents 95.8% (lumen-apposing stents). Technical success was 100% in both groups, and clinical success was similar (F 88.5%, FL 87.5%). Technical incidences and intra-procedure AEs were only described in group F (7.6% and 11.5%, respectively) and none in group FL. Procedure time was less in group FL (8min, p=0.0341). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroless in the EUS-TMD of PFCs does not involve more technical incidences or intra-procedure AEs. Technical and clinical success was similar in the two groups.

Endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-off pancreatic necrosis using a lumen-apposing metal stent and irrigation technique.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is an area of great interest with many still unanswered questions, including the role of mechanical necrosectomy versus irrigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate a new method of endoscopic transmural necrosectomy. METHODS: Patients with WOPN after necrotizing pancreatitis, who underwent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy using a lumen-apposing metal stent with vigorous irrigation sessions, were prospectively recruited between September 2011 and August 2014. Initial endoscopic session was performed by EUS-guided drainage and lavage sessions by flushing saline through the stent. Technical and clinical success rates, number of repeat interventions, and adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with 13 WOPN collections (median size 12.4 ± 2.94 cm) underwent endoscopic treatment. Clinical success was achieved in 100 % of cases after a median of three sessions per patient (range 2-8). The median length of hospitalization was 15.9 days. Median procedure time of the access session was 31 ± 10.16 min. No adverse events (AE) were described during the procedures or 24 h after. There were four AE (two infections and two bleedings) between sessions, but only two were severe (16.6 %). There was no need for surgery, and no mortalities occurred. Mean time to stent retrieval was 9 ± 3.4 weeks. Mean follow-up was 13 months with only one recurrence at 12 months after stent removal. CONCLUSIONS: This new variant of irrigation endoscopic transmural necrosectomy without mechanical debridement helps to simplify the technique, is feasible, and has excellent outcomes in WOPN treatment.

EUS-guided methylene blue cholangiopancreatography for benign biliopancreatic diseases after failed ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: When ERCP fails, EUS-guided interventional techniques may be an alternative. The aim of this study was to evaluate the general outcomes and safety of EUS-guided methylene blue cholangiopancreatography in patients with failed ERCP in benign biliopancreatic diseases. METHODS: Patients with benign biliopancreatic diseases and failed ERCP were included. EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography plus injection of methylene blue was performed, and then ERCP using coloring agent flow as an indicator of papilla orifice was performed. Procedures were prospectively collected in this observational, single-center study. Technical success, clinical success, and adverse events were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included (10 choledocholithiasis, 1 pancreatic stricture). The main reason for failed ERCP was an unidentifiable papilla. EUS-guided ductal access with cholangiopancreatography and papilla orifice identification was obtained in all cases. Technical success and clinical success rates of 91% were achieved, with successful biliopancreatic drainage in 10 patients. Adverse events included 1 peripancreatic abscess attributed to a precut, which was successfully treated. No adverse events were related to the first EUS-guided stage. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography with methylene blue injection seems to be a feasible and helpful technique for treatment in patients with benign biliopancreatic diseases with previous failed ERCP because of an undetectable papilla.