Pancreatic Stent or Rectal Indomethacin-Which Better Prevents Post-ERCP Pancreatitis?: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

We investigated and compared 2 clinical strategies to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).We retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent ERCP between 2008 and 2014. Of 623 patients at high risk for PEP, 145 were treated with prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) only, and 478 were treated with rectal indomethacin (RI) only, for PEP prevention. Patients were matched by one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) by risk factors, with overall PEP incidence as primary outcome, and moderate or severe PEP and complication rates as secondary outcomes.Of 623 patients with high-risk factors, 145 pairs were generated after PSM. Thirty-two patients developed pancreatitis-10 (6.9 %) in the PSP group and 22 (15.2 %) in the RI group (P = 0.025). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 5 patients (2.8%) in the PSP group and 14 patients (9.7 %) in the RI group (P = 0.047).Although indomethacin represents an easy, inexpensive treatment, prophylactic PSP is still the better prevention strategy for PEP.

New-style laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric stromal tumors.

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new style of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), an improved method of laparoscopic intragastric surgery (LIGS) for the treatment of gastric stromal tumors (GSTs). METHODS: Six patients were treated with the new-style LECS. Surgery was performed according to the following procedures: (1) Exposing and confirming the location of the tumor with gastroscopy; (2) A laparoscopy light was placed in the cavity using the trocar at the navel, and the other two trocars penetrated both the abdominal and stomach walls; (3) With gastroscopy monitoring, the operation was carried out in the gastric lumen using laparoscopic instruments and the tumor was resected; and (4) The tumor tissue was removed orally using a gastroscopy basket, and puncture holes and perforations were sutured using titanium clips. RESULTS: Tumor size ranged from 2.0 to 4.5 cm (average 3.50 ± 0.84 cm). The operative time ranged from 60 to 130 min (average 83.33 ± 26.58 min). Blood loss was less than 20 mL and hospital stay ranged from 6 to 8 d (average 6.67 ± 0.82 d). The patients were allowed out of bed 12 h later. A stomach tube was inserted for 72 h after surgery, and a liquid diet was then taken. All cases had single tumors which were completely resected using the new-style LECS. No postoperative complications occurred. Pathology of all resected specimens showed GST: no cases of implantation or metastasis were found. CONCLUSION: New-style LECS for GSTs is a quick, optimized, fast recovery, safe and effective therapy.