RESUMO

•ANP might evolve to MPD rupture which favors PP recurrence. •In cases of MPD rupture the pancreatic tail must be drained to the stomach. •Endoscopic duodenum-gastropancreatic anastomosis is a treatment option.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Introduction: The pancreatic pseudocyst is one of the late local complications of acute pancreatitis. For managing a giant pancreatic pseudocyst, there are multiple strategies. Aim: To present the case of a patient with a giant pancreatic pseudocyst managed by endoscopic cystogastrostomy. Clinical case: A 41-year-old woman developed a giant pancreatic pseudocyst as a complication of acute pancreatitis that was managed by endoscopic cystogastrostomy without endoscopic ultrasound guidance, with good evolution. Conclusions: Endoscopic cystogastrostomy, with or without the help of ultrasound endoscopy or lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), is a viable, safe, effective, and economical therapeutic option for selected patients with a giant pancreatic pseudocyst.

Resumen Introducción: el pseudoquiste pancreático es una de las complicaciones locales tardías de la pancreatitis aguda. Para el manejo del pseudoquiste pancreático gigante existen múltiples estrategias. Objetivo: presentar el caso de una paciente con pseudoquiste pancreático gigante manejado mediante cistogastrostomía endoscópica. Caso clínico: mujer de 41 años que desarrolló un pseudoquiste pancreático gigante como complicación de una pancreatitis aguda y se manejó mediante cistogastrostomía endoscópica sin guía ecoendoscópica, con una adecuada evolución. Conclusiones: la cistogastrostomía endoscópica, con la ayuda o no de ecoendoscopia ni stent de aposición luminal (LAMS), es una opción terapéutica viable, segura, efectiva y económica para pacientes seleccionados con pseudoquiste pancreático gigante.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from acute or chronic pancreatic inflammation that suffers a rupture of its ducts. Currently, there exists three options for drainage or debridement of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (WON). The traditional procedure is drainage by placing double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS); lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has a biflanged design with a wide lumen that avoids occlusion with necrotic tissue, which is more common with DPPS and reduces the possibility of migration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses head-to-head, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. This meta-analysis considers studies published from 2014 to 2020, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analyses. Only one of all studies was a randomized controlled trial. These studies comprise 1584 patients; 68.2% were male, and 31.8% were female. Six hundred sixty-three patients (41.9%) were treated with LAMS, and 921 (58.1%) were treated with DPPS. Six studies included only WON in their analysis, two included only pancreatic pseudocysts, and five studies included both pancreatic pseudocysts and WON. The technical success was similar in patients treated with LAMS and DPPS (97.6% vs 97.5%, respectively, P = .986, RR = 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]). The clinical success was similar in both groups (LAMS: 90.1% vs DPPS: 84.2%, P = .139, RR = 1.063 [95% CI 0.98-1.15]). Patients treated with LAMS had a lower complication rate than the DPPS groups, with a significant statistical difference (LAMS: 16.0% vs DPPS: 20.2%, P = .009, RR = 0.746 [95% CI 0.60-0.93]). Bleeding was the most common complication in the LAMS group (33 patients, [5.0%]), whereas infection was the most common complication in the DPPS group (56 patients, [6.1%]). The LAMS migration rate was lower than in the DPPS (0.9% vs 2.2%, respectively, P = .05). The mortality rate was similar in both groups, 0.6% in the LAMS group (four patients) and 0.4% in the DPPS group (four patients; P = .640). CONCLUSION: The PFCs drainage is an indication when persistent symptoms or PFCs-related complications exist. EUS guided drainage with LAMS has similar technical and clinical success to DPPS drainage for the management of PFCs. The technical and clinical success rates are high in both groups. However, LAMS drainage has a lower adverse events rate than DPPS drainage. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the real advantage of LAMS drainage over DPPS drainage.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) are fluid collections with a well-defined wall that persist for more than 4 weeks inside or around the pancreas as a result of pancreatic inflammation and/or a ductal lesion. PPC have been successfully treated with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage using different stents. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided drainage of PPC using double-pigtail plastic stents in a tertiary hospital. METHODS: Patients with PPC referred for EUS-guided drainage between May 2015 and December 2019 were included in this case series. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the efficacy (clinical success) and safety (adverse events and mortality) of EUS-guided drainage of PPC. Secondary endpoints included technical success and pseudocyst recurrence. RESULTS: Eleven patients (mean age, 44.5±18.98 years) were included in this study. The etiologies for PPC were acute biliary pancreatitis, chronic alcoholic pancreatitis, and blunt abdominal trauma. The mean pseudocyst size was 9.4±2.69 cm. The clinical success rate was 91% (10/11). Adverse events occurred in three of 11 patients (27%). There were no cases of mortality. The technical success rate was 100%. Pseudocyst recurrence was identified in one of 11 patients (9%) at 12 weeks after successful clinical drainage and complete pseudocyst resolution. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided transmural drainage of PPC using double-pigtail plastic stents is safe and effective with high technical and clinical success rates.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumen Introducción: Los pseudoquistes pancreáticos (PQP) corresponden al 80% de las lesiones quísticas del páncreas. Se debe descartar un tumor quístico, que representan el 10% al 15% de los quistes del páncreas y 1% de los tumores malignos por lo que es fundamental el estudio y diagnóstico diferencial. El término pseudoquiste pancreático gigante se usa tradicionalmente cuando el tamaño es mayor de 10 cm. Hay pocos casos de PQP gigantes en la literatura nacional. Objetivo: Reportar caso clínico con PQP gigante, analizar el diagnóstico diferencial y las opciones terapéuticas. Materiales y Método: Paciente con distensión abdominal progresiva, pérdida de peso y anorexia, posepisodio de pancreatitis aguda. Tomografía computarizada abdominal y resonancia magnética confirman lesión quística gigante intraabdominal. El paciente fue tratado con una cistoyeyunostomía pancreática abierta en Y de Roux. El análisis del contenido aspirado durante la cirugía sugiere PQP. Para la discusión se revisa la literatura más relevante. Resultados: Excelente resultado clínico postoperatorio, el estudio histopatológico de la pared del quiste confirmó el diagnóstico de pseudoquiste pancreático. Al año de seguimiento, el paciente permanece asintomático. Discusión: El estudio preoperatorio es crucial para determinar el diagnóstico diferencial y descartar lesiones neoplásicas o parasitarias quísticas. Los PSQ gigantes reportados son poco frecuentes y su manejo quirúrgico dependerá fundamentalmente de su tamaño, de las relaciones anatómicas y de la experiencia del equipo tratante.

Introduction: Pancreatic pseudocysts (PQP) correspond to 80% of cystic lesions of the pancreas. A cystic tumor must be ruled out, which represents 10% to 15% of pancreatic cysts and 1% of malignant tumors, so the study and differential diagnosis is essential. The term giant pancreatic pseudocyst is traditionally used when the size is greater than 10 cm. There are few cases of giant PQP in the national literature. Objective: To report a clinical case with giant PQP, to analyze the differential diagnosis and therapeutic options. Materials and Method: Patient with progressive abdominal distension, weight loss and anorexia post episode of acute pancreatitis. Abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging confirm a giant intra-abdominal cystic lesion. The patient was treated with an open Roux-en-Y pancreatic cysto-jejunostomy. Analysis of the content aspirated during surgery suggests PQP. The most relevant literature is reviewed for discussion. Results: Excellent postoperative clinical results, the histopathological study of the cyst wall, confirmed the diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocyst. At one year of follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic. Discussion: The preoperative study is crucial to determine the differential diagnosis and rule out neoplastic or cystic parasitic lesions. Reported giant PSQs are rare and their surgical management will depend fundamentally on their size, anatomical relationships, and the experience of the treating team.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) are fluid collections with a well-defined wall that persist for more than 4 weeks inside or around the pancreas as a result of pancreatic inflammation and/or a ductal lesion. PPC have been successfully treated with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage using different stents. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided drainage of PPC using double-pigtail plastic stents in a tertiary hospital. METHODS: Patients with PPC referred for EUS-guided drainage between May 2015 and December 2019 were included in this case series. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the efficacy (clinical success) and safety (adverse events and mortality) of EUS-guided drainage of PPC. Secondary endpoints included technical success and pseudocyst recurrence. RESULTS: Eleven patients (mean age, 44.5±18.98 years) were included in this study. The etiologies for PPC were acute biliary pancreatitis, chronic alcoholic pancreatitis, and blunt abdominal trauma. The mean pseudocyst size was 9.4±2.69 cm. The clinical success rate was 91% (10/11). Adverse events occurred in three of 11 patients (27%). There were no cases of mortality. The technical success rate was 100%. Pseudocyst recurrence was identified in one of 11 patients (9%) at 12 weeks after successful clinical drainage and complete pseudocyst resolution. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided transmural drainage of PPC using double-pigtail plastic stents is safe and effective with high technical and clinical success rates.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Pancreatic fluids collections are local complications related to acute or chronic pancreatitis and may require intervention when symptomatic and/or complicated. Within the last decade, endoscopic management of these collections via endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage has become the gold standard treatment for encapsulated pancreatic collections with high clinical success and lower morbidity compared to traditional surgery and percutaneous drainage. Proper understanding of anatomic landmarks, including assessment of the main pancreatic duct and any associated lesions - such as disruptions and strictures - are key to achieving clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention or recurrence, especially in cases with suspected disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Additionally, proper review of imaging and anatomic landmarks, including collection location, are pivotal to determine type and size of pancreatic stenting as well as approach using long-term transmural indwelling plastic stents. Pancreatography to adequately assess the main pancreatic duct may be performed by two methods: Either non-invasively using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopically via retrograde cholangiopan-creatography. Despite the critical need to understand anatomy via pancrea-tography and assess the main pancreatic duct, a standardized approach or uniform assessment strategy has not been described in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this review was to clarify the role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections and to propose a new classification system to aid in proper assessment and endoscopic treatment.

Assuntos

RESUMO

A ansa pancreática é uma variação anatômica rara dos ductos pancreáticos. Consiste numa comunicação entre o ducto pancreático principal (Wirsung) e o ducto pancreático acessório (Santorini). Recentemente, estudos têm demonstrado estar essa variação anatômica implicada como fator predisponente e significativamente associada a episódios recorrentes de pancreatite aguda. A pancreatite é uma entidade clínica pouco frequente na infância. Diferente dos adultos, as causas mais comuns incluem infecções virais, por ascaris, medicamentosas, traumas e anomalias estruturais. O objetivo deste estudo foi relatar um caso de pancreatite aguda grave não alcoólica e não biliar, em um paciente jovem de 15 anos, em cuja propedêutica imagenológica evidenciou-se alça, comunicando com os ductos pancreáticos ventral e dorsal, compatível com ansa pancreática.

Ansa pancreatica is a rare anatomical variation of the pancreatic ducts. It consists of communication between the main pancreatic duct (Wirsung) and the accessory pancreatic duct (Santorini). Recently, studies have shown that this anatomical variation is implicated as a predisposing factor and significantly associated with recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatitis is a rare clinical entity in childhood. Different from that in the adults, the most common causes include viral and ascaris infections, drugs, traumas, and structural abnormalities. The objective of this study was to report a case of a severe non-alcoholic and non-biliary acute pancreatitis in a 15-year-old patient, whose propedeutic imaging showed a loop communicating with the ventral and dorsal pancreatic ducts, consistent with ansa pancreatica.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Los tumores pseudopapilares del páncreas son tumores de origen pancreático poco frecuentes y de etiología desconocida. Comprenden entre el 0.2 y 2.7% de los carcinomas de páncreas. Hasta 2015 hay 900 casos reportados en la literatura, siendo una minoría en etapa diseminada. Son tumores voluminosos, de bajo potencial maligno, que se presentan con mayor frecuencia en mujeres jóvenes entre 18 y 35 años. Generalmente son asintomáticos o manifiestan clínicamente síntomas inespecíficos como dolor abdominal o presencia de masa abdominal. Anatómicamente se localizan con mayor frecuencia en la cola del páncreas, seguidos por la cabeza y el cuerpo. El tratamiento de elección es la resección quirúrgica. El rol de la quimioterapia en la enfermedad irresecable o avanzada no está claramente definido. Son tumores de excelente pronóstico, con sobrevida a 5 años de casi 100%.Se presentan cuatro casos clínicos y se hace una revisión de la literatura.

Pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas are tumors of pancreatic origin with a low frequency and an unknown etiology. They account for 0.2 - 2.7 % of all pancreatic carcinomas. Up to 2015 there were approximately 900 well documented cases with only a small minority of them in a metastatic stage. This tumors could reach large proportions and they occur predominantly in young women between 18 and 35 years of age. Most of patients are asymptomatic or have non specific symptoms including abdominal pain or palpable abdominal mass. The most common localization is the tail of the pancreas, followed by the head and the body. Complete resection is the treatment of choice. It is not clearly stablished the rol of chemotherapy in metastatic disease. There are tumors with a favorable prognosis, with an overall 5 year survival rate about 95%. Herein, we report four clinical cases and a literatura review.

Os tumores pseudopapilares do pâncreas são tumores de origem pancreática pouco frequentes e de etiologia desconhecida. Compreendem entre 0.2 e 2.7% dos carcinomas de pâncreas. Até 2015 há 900 casos relatados na literatura, sendo uma minoria em etapa disseminada. São tumores volumosos, de baixo potencial maligno, que se apresentam com maior frequência em mulheres jovens entre 18 e 35 anos. Geralmente são assintomáticos ou apresentam clinicamente sintomas inespecíficos como dor abdominal ou presença de massa abdominal. Anatomicamente, localizam-se mais frequentemente na cauda do pâncreas, seguidos por cabeça e corpo. O tratamento de escolha é a ressecção cirúrgica. O papel da quimioterapia na doença irressecável ou avançada não está claramente definido. São tumores de excelente prognóstico, com sobrevida a 5 anos de quase 100%. Apresentam-se quatro casos clínicos e faz-se uma revisão da literatura.

Assuntos

Assuntos