AT DDW 2016
SAN DIEGO (FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS) – Endoscopic and laparoscopic drainage worked about equally well for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled off necrosis in a small randomized trial from India, the first to compare the two options.
Both are in common use, but until now it wasn’t clear if one was better than the other. The findings mean that “in general, one could do either; the choice of treatment depends [largely] on the expertise available. As an endoscopist, I prefer endoscopic drainage,” said gastroenterologist Pramod Garg, of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
Laparoscopic drainage was a technical success in 23 of the 30 patients (76.6%) randomized to it, six of whom (20%) had symptomatic pseudocysts larger than 6 cm for more than 6 weeks; the rest had walled off necrosis (WON) containing less than 30% necrotic debris. Five of the other patients were converted to open surgery, and two underwent percutaneous drainage. One of the 30 patients required endoscopic lavage and necrosectomy for secondary infection.
Endoscopic drainage, meanwhile, was technically successful in 22 of 30 patients (73.3%) with similar distributions of pseudocysts and WON. Most of the other patients needed subsequent endoscopic lavage and necrosectomy for secondary infection.
Clinical success – defined as resolution by week 4 – was 100% in the laparoscopic and 97% (29/30) in the endoscopic groups; one endoscopic patient had a splenic artery pseudoaneurysm that required further surgery. The differences in technical and clinical success rates were not statistically significant. There were no recurrences and no deaths in either group after an average follow-up of 22 months.
Although it seems okay to opt for either approach, “it’s very important for us to assess the amount of necrotic debris. If the amount is sizable, say 50% or more of the volume, one should hesitate before doing purely endoscopic drainage.” As seen in the study, “the chances of developing an infection are pretty high, especially if,” like the investigators, “you place only a plastic stent,” Dr. Garg said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
Laparoscopic drainage would probably be better when there’s a lot of necrotic tissue, and certainly so if patients need their gallbladder removed, because it can be taken out at the same time. If endoscopy is still the choice, “you should be prepared to do repeat procedures for endoscopic lavage and necrosectomy. The chance of infection may be less if you use a metal stent with a wide diameter,” Dr. Garg said. Before tackling WON with endoscopy, he suggested getting input from a radiologist and surgeon.
Laparoscopic cystogastrostomy was done in the usual manner, with an endostapler to create a wide cystogastrostomy, necrotic debris suction, and concomitant cholecystectomies as needed.
Endoscopic drainage was performed under endosonographic guidance in the 13 patients without bulging cysts, and directly in the 17 patients whose cysts bulged. A balloon was used to dilate the cystogastrostomy tract to 12-15 mm, and a 10 F double pigtail plastic stent placed to keep it open.
Patients in both groups received perioperative antibiotics. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters and etiology of acute pancreatitis were comparable between the two groups. Patients tended to be in their mid-30s, and about 75% in both groups were women. Over a third in each group had gallstone disease. The median hospital stay in both groups was about a week. Fever was more common following endoscopic drainage, probably because of the higher incidence of secondary infection.
Patients with complicated pseudocysts, coagulopathies, or organ failure were excluded from the investigation, as well as those otherwise unfit for surgery.
There was no industry funding for the work, and Dr. Garg had no disclosures.
