Comparative Evaluation of Transpapillary Drainage with Nasopancreatic Drain and Stent in Patients with Large Pseudocysts Located Near Tail of Pancreas

• Published in: Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2011-05, Vol.15 (5), p.772-776
• Main Authors: Bhasin, Deepak Kumar, Rana, Surinder Singh, Nanda, Mohit, Chandail, Vijant S., Gupta, Rajesh, Kang, Mandeep, Nagi, Birinder, Sinha, Saroj K., Singh, Kartar
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 2010 SSAT Poster Presentation; Adult; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cysts; Drainage - methods; Endoscopy; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Gastroenterology; Humans; Hypotheses; Infections; Male; Medical education; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nose; Pancreas; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Pseudocyst - diagnosis; Pancreatic Pseudocyst - therapy; Pancreatitis; Patients; Retrospective Studies; Stents; Surgery; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1091-255X; 1873-4626
• DOI: 10.1007/s11605-011-1466-1

Background Endoscopic transpapillary drainage is usually not advocated for large pseudocysts for fear of infection. We compared efficacy of transpapillary drainage with nasopancreatic drain (NPD) or stent alone in large pseudocysts (>6 cm) located near tail of pancreas. Methods In a prospective study, a 5-Fr stent/NPD was placed across/near pancreatic duct disruption in 11 patients (nine chronic and two acute pancreatitis) with large pseudocysts located near tail of pancreas. The patients were followed up for resolution of pseudocyst, need for surgery, and complications. Results Pseudocysts diameter ranged from 7 to 15 cm. An attempt to place NPD was made in five patients and a stent in six patients. In NPD group, deep cannulation could not be achieved in one patient; it was treated successfully with percutaneous drainage. In four patients with partial duct disruption, NPD was successfully placed bridging disruption and all had resolution within 6 weeks. In stent group, five had partial and one had complete duct disruption, who later recovered by placement of a stent. Of five patients with partial disruption, one recovered uneventfully at 6 weeks with stent bridging disruption. Other four patients (bridging stent in three) developed febrile illness and infection of pseudocyst. They required additional percutaneous drainage and antibiotics. There was no recurrence of pseudocysts over follow-up of 16.4 months. Conclusion Endoscopic transpapillary drainage with NPD bridging disruption is associated with good outcome in patients with large pseudocysts at tail end of pancreas. However, there was increased frequency of infection when stent was used for drainage.