Sequential therapy with combined trans-papillary endoscopic naso-pancreatic and endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts

Table 1 Patient demographics

Variable		Grouping by surgery		χ2 / t	P value
		ERPD	Two-step procedure
Gender	Male	58	35	0.339	0.560
	Female	34	25
Age (yr) mean ± SD	-	47.7 ± 16.21	47.42 ± 15.34	0.066	0.947
Source/Location	Biliary	39	35	9.249	0.100
	High fat	28	16
	Alcoholic	14	9
	Post-operation	3	0
	Trauma	6	0
	Pancreatic fistula	2	0
Part	Body of the pancreas	30	15	1.705	0.426
	Head of the pancreas	20	18
	Tail of the pancreas	42	27

Two-step procedure: Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage sequential therapy. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data shown are the mean ± SD. ERPD: Endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage; ENPD: Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage; SD: Standard deviation.

Table 2 Comparison of relevant indices after treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts via endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage and the two-step procedure

Variable	Classification	Grouping by surgery		χ2 / t	P value
		ERPD	Two-step procedure
Complications	Infection	12	2	4.095	0.043
	None	80	58
Rate of reoperation	Reoperation method (puncture/open surgery)	7 (4/3)	0	4.786	0.029
	None	85	60
Recurrence rate	Recurrence	19	0	14.161	0.000
	None	73	60
Size of pancreatic pseudocyst (cm), mean ± SD	-	8.73 ± 3.71	13.25 ± 4.11	-4.483	0.000
Length of stay (d)	-	8.61 ± 3.07	12.15 ± 1.99	-19.157	0.000
Treatment cost (USD), mean ± SD	-	7875.05 ± 5221.5	7715.21 ± 3030.57	0.126	0.900

Two-step procedure: Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage sequential therapy. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data shown are the mean ± SD. ERPD: Endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage; ENPD: Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage; SD: Standard deviation.

Table 3 Comparison of cyst classification and infection in 152 patients

Group			Complications		Total	χ2	P value
			Infection	None
ERPD group	Classification	I	0	7	7	6.271	0.043
		II	2	37	39
		III	10	36	46
	Total		12	80	92
Two-step procedure	Classification	I	0	0	0	1.379	0.240
		II	0	24	24
		III	2	34	36
	Total		2	58	60
Total	Classification	I	0	7	7	6.339	0.042
		II	2	61	64
		III	12	70	81
	Total		14	138	152

Two-step procedure: Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage sequential therapy. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ERPD: Endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage; ENPD: Endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage.

Table 4 Comparison of computed tomography cycle threshold between the endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage group and two-step procedure group

Group	Number of cases	Average value (HU)	Standard deviation	Mean square	F	P value
ERPD group	92	12.796	6.4624	36.857	0.755	0.388
Two-step procedure group	60	14.636	8.6450	48.789
Total	152	13.205	6.9711

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ERPD: Endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage; HU: Hounsfield units.

Table 5 Comparison of computed tomography cycle threshold between 14 infected patients and 138 non-infected patients

Group	Number of cases	Average value (HU)	Standard deviation	Mean square	F	P value
Infection	14	15.600	8.3953	222.425	4.862	0.031
No infection	138	11.731	5.5476	45.747
Total	152	13.205	6.9711

P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. HU: Hounsfield units.