2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.07.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
98
1
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
4
98
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, the EUS approach provides an important alternative in these patients. In a recent study comparing EUS-PD with enteroscopy-assisted ERP, EUS-PD was associated with significantly higher technical and clinical success rates (92.5% vs 20%, P<0.001%; and 87.5% vs 23.5%, P<0.001, respectively) 121. However, there were also significantly more mild to moderate adverse events in the EUS-PD group (35% vs 2.9%, P<0.001) without significant differences in procedural times and hospital stay.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Thus, the EUS approach provides an important alternative in these patients. In a recent study comparing EUS-PD with enteroscopy-assisted ERP, EUS-PD was associated with significantly higher technical and clinical success rates (92.5% vs 20%, P<0.001%; and 87.5% vs 23.5%, P<0.001, respectively) 121. However, there were also significantly more mild to moderate adverse events in the EUS-PD group (35% vs 2.9%, P<0.001) without significant differences in procedural times and hospital stay.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Procedure time and length of stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups. AEs included abdominal pain requiring hospitalization, intraabdominal abscesses and jejunal ulceration secondary to pancreatic stent placement [34]. Although there were no severe AEs with EUS-PDI in this study, the overall complication rate of 30% is very high.…”
Section: Outcomes Of Eus-pdimentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Common indications include stenosis of the PJ with or without pancreatic fistula (seen in 30% to 50% of patients who have undergone the Whipple procedure) [57-59], PD stricture or stones in chronic pancreatitis, main pancreatic duct (MPD) disruption, and failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). Overall, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) has been associated with lower success (69%) and higher complication rates (42.9%) than EUS-BD, although recent multicenter international retrospective studies suggested improved rates of success (>90% technical and 81%–88% clinical success) [60,61]. Of note, 63% of the patients in these recent studies had SAA.…”
Section: Therapeutic Eusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stent dysfunction in over 50% of patients is the predominant concern during long-term follow-up [77,78]. A recent international multicenter retrospective study of 66 patients post-Whipple compared 40 EUS-PD procedures to 35 enteroscopy-assisted ERPs [61]. Both technical and clinical success was superior with the EUS approach (88%–93% vs. 20%–23%), although complications were also greater (35% vs. 3%).…”
Section: Therapeutic Eusmentioning
confidence: 99%