4.7 Article

A Long-Term Follow-Up Study on Endoscopic Management of Children and Adolescents With Chronic Pancreatitis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 105, Issue 8, Pages 1884-1892

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.85

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30800510]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: Data on therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for chronic pancreatitis (CP) in children and adolescents, especially with long-term follow-up of consequences, are rarely reported. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term follow-up results of therapeutic ERCP for CP in children and adolescents. METHODS: All patients with CP who received therapeutic ERCP at Changhai Hospital from January 1997 to May 2009, with the age at first onset of pain being less than 18.0 years, were included. Attempts were made to contact all adolescents and follow-up data were recorded. Clinical data were assessed before and after every ERCP. RESULTS: Follow-up information was available in 42 (91.3%) of the 46 patients who received therapeutic ERCP. There were 20 boys and 22 girls, with the age at first onset being 11.8 +/- 4.5 years. A total of 110 therapeutic ERCP sessions were performed in the 42 patients. The post-ERCP complication rate was 17.3%, including mild and moderate pancreatitis (n = 17) and mild cholangitis (n = 2). The mean follow-up period of time was 61.4 (range: 24-132) months. Five patients underwent subsequent surgery because of refractory abdominal pain after endotherapy. Of the remaining 37 patients who received therapeutic ERCP alone, abdominal pain improved in 30 (81.1%) patients, and was completely relieved in 24 (64.9%) patients during the period of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic ERCP may offer long-term improvement in pain in children and adolescents with CP.

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