4.5 Article

Clinical outcome of endoscopic treatment of symptomatic Hepaticojejunal anastomotic strictures after pancreatoduodenectomy

期刊

HPB
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 1040-1046

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.05.362

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively investigated the success and adverse event rates of endoscopic therapy for symptomatic HJAS after PD. The results showed a moderate technical success rate and a high recurrence rate. Future studies should optimize treatment protocols and compare different treatment methods.
Background: Hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture (HJAS) is an adverse event after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) which can result in jaundice and/or cholangitis. With endoscopy, HJAS can be managed. However, few studies report the specific success and adverse event rates of endoscopic therapy after PD.Methods: Patients with symptomatic HJAS, who underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at the Erasmus MC between 2004-2020, were retrospectively included. Primary outcomes were short-term clinical success defined as no need for re-intervention <3 months and longterm <12 months. Secondary outcome measures were cannulation success and adverse events. Recurrence was defined as symptoms with radiological/endoscopic confirmation.Results: A total of 62 patients were included. The hepaticojejunostomy was reached in 49/62 (79%) of the patients, subsequently cannulated in 42/49 (86%) and in 35/42 patients (83%) an intervention was performed. Recurrence of symptomatic HJAS after technically successful intervention occurred in 20 (57%) patients after median time to recurrence of 7.5 months [95%CI, 7.2-NA]. Adverse events were reported in 4% of the procedures (8% of patients), mostly concerning cholangitis.Discussion: Endoscopic treatment for symptomatic HJAS after PD has a moderate technical success rate and a high recurrence rate. Future studies should optimize endoscopic treatment protocols and compare percutaneous versus endoscopic treatment.

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

4.5
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