Endoscopic cystogastrostomy versus surgical cystogastrostomy in the management of acute pancreatic pseudocysts

7Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Studies comparing surgical versus endoscopic drainage of pseudocyst customarily include patients with both acute and chronic pseudocysts and the endoscopic modalities used for drainage are protean. We compared the outcomes following endoscopic cystogastrostomy (ECG) and surgical cystogastrostomy (SCG) in patients with acute pseudocyst. Methods: Seventy-three patients with acute pseudocyst requiring drainage from 2011 to 2014 were analysed (18 patients excluded: transpapillary drainage n = 15; cystojejunostomy n = 3). The remaining 55 patients were divided into two groups, ECG n = 35 and SCG n = 20, and their outcomes (technical success, successful drainage, complication rate and hospital stay) were compared. Results: The technical success (31/35 [89%] vs. 20/20 [100%] P = 0.28), complication rate (10/35 [28.6%] vs. 2/20 [10%]; P = 0.17) and median hospital stay (6.5 days [range 2-12] vs. 5 days [range 3-12]; P = 0.22) were comparable in both the groups, except successful drainage which was higher in surgical group (27/35 [78%] vs. 20/20 [100%] P = 0.04). The conversion rate to surgical procedure was 17%. The location of cyst towards tail of pancreas and presence of necrosis were the main causes of technical failure and failure of successful endoscopic drainage, respectively. Conclusion: Surgical drainage albeit remains the gold standard for management of pseudocyst drainage; endoscopic drainage should be considered a first-line treatment in patients with acute pseudocyst considering the reasonably good success rate.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Saluja, S., Srivastava, S., Govind, S., Dahale, A., Sharma, B., & Mishra, P. (2020). Endoscopic cystogastrostomy versus surgical cystogastrostomy in the management of acute pancreatic pseudocysts. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery, 16(2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_109_18

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free