1.Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections (with Video).
Clinical Endoscopy 2012;45(3):337-340
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is often used to guide drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). EUS enhances the diagnosis of cystic pancreatic lesions and enables real-time image-guided control of PFC drainage. EUS may facilitate the endoscopic treatment of patients with pancreatic necrosis and patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.
Drainage
;
Humans
;
Necrosis
;
Pancreatic Ducts
2.Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Indeterminate Biliary Strictures.
Clinical Endoscopy 2012;45(3):328-330
Biliary strictures may be due to a variety of benign and malignant processes. Imaging with endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) often suggests the diagnosis, but is usually not definitive. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) facilitates the diagnosis of extrahepatic biliary strictures, although peritioneal metastases due to needle tract seeding may occur after EUS-FNA of cholangiocarcinoma. In addition to diagnosis of strictures, EUS may play an important role in staging of cholangiocarcinoma.
Bile Ducts
;
Biopsy, Fine-Needle
;
Cholangiocarcinoma
;
Constriction, Pathologic
;
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
;
Endosonography
;
Needles
;
Neoplasm Metastasis
;
Seeds
3.Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis
Jad ABIMANSOUR ; Veeravich JARUVONGVANICH ; Saran VELAGA ; Ryan LAW ; Andrew C. STORM ; Mark TOPAZIAN ; Michael J. LEVY ; Ryan ALEXANDER ; Eric J. VARGAS ; Aliana BOFILL-GARICA ; John A. MARTIN ; Bret T. PETERSEN ; Barham K. ABU DAYYEH ; Vinay CHANDRASEKHARA
Clinical Endoscopy 2024;57(5):595-603
Background/Aims:
Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.
Methods:
A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).
Results:
Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).
Conclusions
Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.