A comparison of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Background: Endoscopic therapy of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) via direct intracavitary debridement is described. Objective: To compare endoscopic necrosectomy with conventional transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment of WOPN. Design: Retrospective, comparative study Setting: Academic tertiary-care center. Patients: Patients referred to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, since April 1998 for endoscopic drainage of WOPN Interventions: Each patient underwent standard endoscopic drainage that consisted of transmural cavity puncture, any of their procedures, adjunctive direct endoscopic necrosectomy was performed; all others were in the standard drainage group. Main Outcome Measurements: Success was defined as resolution of the necrotic cavity without the need for operative or percutaneous intervention. Results: Forty-five patients were identified who met study criteria ; 25 underwent direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and 20 underwent standard endoscopic drainage. There were no differences in baseline patient or cavity characteristics. Successful resolution was accomplished in 88% who underwent direct endoscopic necrosectomy versus 45% who received standard drainage (P <.01), without a change in the total number of procedures. The maximum size of tract dilation was larger in the direct endoscopic necrosectomy group (17 mm vs 14 mm, P <.02). Complications were limited to mild periprocedural bleeding with equivalent rates between groups. Limitations: Retrospective, referred bias, single center. Conclusions: Direct endoscopic necrosectomy achieves higher rates of resolution, without a concomitant change in the number of endoscopic procedures, complication rate, or time to resolution compared with standard endoscopic drainage for WOPN. The need for fewer postprocedural inpatient hospital days and a decrease in the rate of cavity recurrence are also likely benefits of this technique.(Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:1085-94.)