4.7 Article

Early endoscopic treatment of symptomatic pancreatic necrotic collections

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03924-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study demonstrates that transmural endoscopic drainage is an effective method for the treatment of early ANCs within the first four weeks of ANP. However, compared with endoscopic intervention in WOPN, more interventions and longer duration of drainage are required.
EUS-guided transmural endoscopic drainage is commonly used in the treatment of WOPN in the late phase of ANP. The role of endoscopic intervention remains unclear in the early phase of ANP. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate early endoscopic treatment of ANCs compared with endoscopic drainage of WOPN. Overall, 71 patients with ANP who underwent transmural endoscopic drainage for necrotic collections were included. Endoscopic intervention was performed within the first four weeks of ANP in 25 (35.21%) patients with ANC (Group 1) and in 46 (64.79%) patients after four weeks since the onset of ANP with WOPN (Group 2). The overall mean age of patients was 49.9 (22-79) years and 59 of them were males. The mean time of active drainage and duration of total endoscopic treatment was 26.8 and 16.9 days (P = 0.0001) and 270.8 and 164.2 days (P = 0.0001) in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The average total number of endoscopic interventions was 9.5 and 4.5 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.0001). The clinical success rate, frequency of complications of endoscopic interventions, long-term success rate, and recurrence rate were not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.05 for each). Transmural endoscopic drainage is effective method of treatment of early ANCs within the first four weeks of ANP. However, compared with endoscopic intervention in WOPN, more interventions and longer duration of drainage are required.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available