3.8 Review

Advances in the endoscopic management of pancreatic collections

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 381-388

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i4.381

Keywords

Pancreatic collection; Endosonography; Drainage; Pancreatic duct; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatografic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Treatment of pancreatic collections has experienced great progress in recent years with the emergence of alternative minimally invasive techniques comparing to the classic surgical treatment. Such techniques have been shown to improve outcomes of morbidity vs surgical treatment. The recent emergence of endoscopic drainage is noteworthy. The advent of endoscopic ultrasonography has been crucial for treatment of these specific lesions. They can be characterized, their relationships with neighboring structures can be evaluated and the drainage guided by this technique has been clearly improved compared with the conventional endoscopic drainage. Computed tomography is the technique of choice to characterize the recently published new classification of pancreatic collections. For this reason, the radiologist's role establishing and classifying in a rigorously manner the collections according to the new nomenclature is essential to making therapeutic decisions. Ideal scenario for comprehensive treatment of these collections would be those centers with endoscopic ultrasound and interventional radiology expertise together with hepatobiliopancreatic surgery. This review describes the different types of pancreatic collections: acute peripancreatic fluid collection, pancreatic pseudocysts, acute necrotic collection and walled-off necrosis; the indications and the contraindications for endoscopic drainage, the drainage technique and their outcomes. The integrated management of pancreatic collections according to their type and evolution time is discussed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available