Background/Aims There are no consensus guidelines for patients with acute cholecystitis undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are unfit for interval cholecystectomy. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopic gallbladder drainage, i.e. conversion from percutaneous cholecystostomy (including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage), and conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Methods This retrospective review included patients who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis between January 2017 and December 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal without interval cholecystectomy were included. Outcome measures included recurrent acute cholecystitis and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases. Results During the study period, 238 patients were selected (63 underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion and 175 underwent conservative treatment). Patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion had lower rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis (3 [4.76%] vs 31 [17.71%], p=0.012) and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases (6 [9.52%] vs 40 [22.86%], p=0.022) than those who underwent conservative treatment following percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, calculus cholecystitis (odds ratio, 13.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.83 to 102.83; p=0.011) and conversion of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.78; p=0.019) were significant predictive factors for recurrent acute cholecystitis. Conclusions Endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion led to more favorable outcomes than conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Therefore, endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion may be considered a promising treatment option for patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are at a high surgical risk.
There are still debated about surveillance interval, duration, diagnostic modality and treatment for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas. In recent guidelines, ‘high risk stigmata (HRS)’ and ‘worrisome feature (WF)’ are defined as predictive factors for malignancy in IPMN. IPMNs with HRS and main duct- IPMN are more likely to accompany malignancies, thus require surgery. However, in the case of only WF, since the risk of malignancy is different for each factor, the management decision can be variable according to the number of overlapping WFs. In addition, for segmental main pancreatic duct dilatation without enhancing mural nodules, careful surveillance might be considered rather than immediate surgery. In IPMN patients with elderly or severe comorbidities, treatment strategy should be determined based on surgical and malignant risk assessment. To date, the natural course of IPMN patients with HRS and WF is not well understood, thus further studies with a large number of patients are needed.
In severe acute pancreatitis, accompanied by local complications such as acute peripancreatic fluid collection, pancreatic pseudocyst, acute necrotic collection and walled-off necrosis, the mortality rate is as high as 12-25%. In many cases, interventional procedure or surgical treatment are required at an appropriate time. Conservative treatment is considered for acute peripancreatic fluid collection. Endoscopic drainage could be considered preferentially for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts with clinical symptoms or complications. In the case of necrotizing pancreatitis, conservative treatment is preferred, but therapeutic intervention should be considered if infectious pancreatic necrosis with clinical deterioration is suspected. For therapeutic intervention, it is recommended to proceed with a step-up approach in which drainage is first performed and, if necessary, necrosectomy is performed. The optimal timing of intervention is considered 4 weeks after the onset of pancreatitis when necrosis become walled-off, but early drainage within 4 weeks can be considered depending on the patient's condition. This guideline provides an overview of current treatment strategies for local complications of acute pancreatitis.
Background/Aims: Most guidelines recommend surgical resection of all main duct (MD) and mixed-type (MT) intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) in suitable patients. However, there is little evidence regarding the malignancy risk of enhancing mural nodules (EMNs) that are present only in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) in patients with MD-and MT-IPMNs. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the clinical and morphological features associated with malignancy in MD-and MT-IPMNs with EMNs only in the MPD. Methods:We retrospectively enrolled 50 patients with MD-and MT-IPMNs with EMNs only in the MPD on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. We evaluated the clinical characteristics and preoperative radiologic imaging results of MPD morphology and EMN size and analyzed the risk factors associated with malignancy.Results: Histological findings of EMNs were low-grade dysplasia (38%), malignant lesions (62%), high-grade dysplasia (34%), and invasive carcinoma (28%). On the receiver operating characteristic curve, the cutoff value of EMN size on magnetic resonance imaging for best predicting malignancy was 5 mm (sensitivity, 93.5%; specificity, 52.6%; area under the curve, 0.753). Multivariate analysis showed that only EMN >5 mm (odds ratio, 27.69; confidence interval, 2.75 to 278.73; p=0.050) was an independent risk factor for malignancy.Conclusions: EMNs of >5 mm are associated with malignancy in patients with MD-and MT-IPMNs with EMNs that are present only in the MPD, in accordance with the international consensus guidelines.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.