Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for patients with symptomatic obstruction and enlargement of the pancreatic duct

Table 1 Clinical and pathologic characteristics of 94 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct between June 2002 and April 2014 n (%)

Clinical/pathological characteristics	Values
Patients, n	94
Age (yr), mean (range)	54 (28–87)
Sex ratio, M:F	60:34
Interventions, n	111
Duration of the procedure (min), mean (range)	21 (15–69)
Indication for EUS-guided pancreatography, n	94
Indication for EUS-guided drainage, n	83
Indication for EUPD, n	94
Chronic pancreatitis	35 (37.2)
Previous surgical intervention with fluid retention in the pancreatic duct	30 (31.9)
Pancreas divisum	15 (16.0)
Disconnected pancreatic tail syndrome	9 (9.6)
Persistent postoperative fistula	5 (5.3)
EUPD, n	83
Success rate	47 (56.6)
Route of access (n = 47)
Transpapillary	21 (44.7)
Transgastric	26 (55.3)

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; EUPD: EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct.

Table 2 Comparisons of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct performed before and after introduction of Will’s HF ring knife into clinical endoscopic practice n (%)

Intervention period	Clinical success	Re-interventions	Adverse events
Before introduction of ring knife (n = 35)	25 (71.4)	11 (31.4)	14 (40.0)
After introduction of ring knife (n = 48)	43 (89.6)	6 (12.5)	11 (22.9)

Table 3 Adverse events related to endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct in 111 interventions performed between June 2002 and April 2014 (n = 24)

Adverse event	n
Major
Perforation	1
Abscess	1
Intermediate
Bleeding	6
Moderate pancreatitis	6
Abscess	3
Perigastric fluid	2
Ulcer caused by pressure	2
Aspiration	1
Minor
Perigastric fluid	1
Retention cyst	1

Table 4 Results of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct - chonological order

Ref.	n	Technical success (%)	Clinical success (%)	Adverse events (%)
Mallery et al[17], 2004	4	25	ND	25
Will et al[20], 2007	14	69	78	15
Kahaleh et al[15], 2007	13	76	69	15
Tessier et al[19], 2007	36	92	69	14
Brauer et al[11], 2009	8	88	50	0
Barkay et al[10], 2010	21	48	100	10
Ergun et al[12], 2011	20	90	72	19
Will et al[21], 2011	65	60	74	15
Shah et al[18], 2012	25	88	ND	16
Kurihara et al[16], 2013	14	88	ND	6
Fuji et al[13], 2013	45	74	83	6
Will et al[22], 2013	84	59	78	18

ND: No data