4.4 Article

Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Adenomas

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 260-268

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05812-2

Keywords

Papillectomy; ERCP; Adenoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective treatment for ampullary adenomas and has mostly replaced surgical local resection. Recent data have discussed the role of endoscopic removal of laterally spreading adenomas associated with ampullary adenomas. We evaluated our long-term results of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenomas. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy of biopsy-proven adenomas at our tertiary center between 1994 and 2017. Clinical success was defined as complete excision of an adenoma with no evidence of recurrence during follow-up, no evidence of cancer, and without the need for surgery. Results A total of 161 patients (73M/88F) with a mean age of 61 (range 19-93) were included. Mean adenoma size was 20 mm (range 5-70). In total, 114/161 patients continued endoscopic surveillance for a minimum of 6 months with a median follow-up of 30 months (range 6-283). Recurrent adenomas were diagnosed in 8 patients (7%) after a median of 36 months (range 12-138). Clinical success was 83%; 35 laterally spreading adenomas were treated, which were larger than adenomas confined to the papilla (mean size 38 mm vs 15 mm, P < 0.05) and required more piecemeal resections (77% vs 15%, P < 0.05). However, no difference was found in recurrence rates between the two groups (8% vs 4%, P = 0.26); 24/161 (15%) of patients had adverse events including bleeding (6%) and pancreatitis (7%). Conclusions Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective treatment for ampullary adenomas, including laterally spreading ones. Long-term surveillance demonstrates low recurrence rates at expert centers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available