4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Consequences of long term indwelling transmural stents in patients with walled off pancreatic necrosis & disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome

期刊

PANCREATOLOGY
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 486-490

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2013.07.284

关键词

Acute pancreatitis; Stents; Computed tomography; Endoscopic ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: There is limited data on the long term consequences and safety profile of long term indwelling transmural stents after successful treatment of walled off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Aim: To retrospectively evaluate consequences of long term indwelling transmural stents in patients with WOPN. Methods: The records of patients who underwent endoscopic transmural drainage of WOPN and had disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) were analyzed. Results: Thirty patients (26 M; mean age 37.1 +/- 7.8 years) with long term indwelling transmural stents and DPDS were followed up for a mean of 20.4 +/- 12.2 months (range: 3-38 months). The etiology of acute necrotizing pancreatitis was alcohol in 21, gall stones in 7 and idiopathic in 2 patients. In all patients two or three, 7 (17 patients) or 10 Fr (13 patients) 5 cm double pigtail stents were placed. ERCP revealed disconnected PD at the pancreatic head, body and tail region in 22, 7, and 1 patient respectively. Five patients (16.6%) had spontaneous migration of stents (both the stents in four patients and one stent in one patient; 7 Fr in four and 10 Fr in one patient respectively). Stent migration led to recurrence of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) in one patient whereas in the remaining 4 patients it did not cause any symptoms. There was no recurrence of symptomatic PFC in remaining 25 patients. Conclusion: Long term indwelling transmural stents in patients with WOPN and DPDS seem to be safe and also appear to decrease the risk of PFC recurrence. Copyright (C) 2013, IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier India, a division of Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据