Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Primary and overall success rates for clinical outcomes after laparoscopic, endoscopic, and open pancreatic cystgastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocysts

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts can be accomplished by traditional open or minimally invasive laparoscopic or endoscopic approaches. This study aimed to evaluate the primary and overall success rates and clinical outcomes after laparoscopic, endoscopic, and open pancreatic cystgastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocysts.

Methods

Records of 83 patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 16), endoscopic (n = 45), and open (n = 22) pancreatic cystgastrostomy were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) in the mean patient age (years), gender, body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), etiology of pancreatitis (% gallstone), or size (cm) of pancreatic pseudocyst between the groups. Grade 2 or greater complications occurred within 30 days of the primary procedure for 31.5% of the laparoscopic patients, 15.6% of the endoscopic patients, and 22.7% of the open patients (nonsignificant differences). The follow-up evaluation for 75 patients (90.4%) was performed at a mean interval of 9.5 months (range, 1–40 months). The primary compared with the overall success rate, defined as cyst resolution, was 51.1% vs. 84.6% for the endoscopic group, 87.5% vs. 93.8% for the laparoscopic group, and 81.2% vs. 90.9% for the open group. The primary success rate was significantly higher (p < 0.01) for laparoscopic and open groups than for the endoscopic group, but the overall success rate was equivalent across the groups (nonsignificant differences). Primary endoscopic failures were salvaged by open pancreatic cystgastrostomy (n = 13), percutaneous drainage (n = 3), and repeat endoscopic drainage (n = 6).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic and open pancreatic cystgastrostomy both have a higher primary success rate than endoscopic internal drainage, although repeat endoscopic cystgastrostomy provides overall success for selected patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aljarabah M, Ammori BJ (2007) Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a systematic review of published series. Surg Endosc 21:1936–1944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pekmezci S, Saribeyoglu K, Karahasanoglu T, Tasci H (2002) Total laparoscopic cystgastrostomy for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 12(2):119–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kellogg TA, Horvath KD (2003) Minimal access approaches to complications of acute pancreatitis and benign neoplasms of the pancreas. Surg Endosc 17:1692–1704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shimizu S, Tanaka M, Konomi H, Mizumoto K, Yamaguchi K (2004) Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:402–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Teixeira J, Gibbs KE, Vaimakis S, Rezayat C (2003) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y pancreatic cyst-jejunostomy. Surg Endosc 17:1910–1913

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tseng D, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG (2005) New approaches to the minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic cancer. Cancer J 11:43–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Park A, Heniford BT (2002) Therapeutic laparoscopy of the pancreas. Ann Surg 236:149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kahaleh M, Shami VM, Conaway MR, Tokar J, Rockoff T, De La Rue SA, de Lange E, Bassignani M, Gay S, Adams RB, Yeaton P (2006) Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst: a prospective comparison with conventional endoscopic drainage. Endoscopy 38:355–359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kozarek RA, Brayko CM, Harlan J, Sanowski RA, Cintora I, Kovac A (1985) Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 31:322–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bergman S, Melvin WS (2007) Operative and nonoperative management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Clin North Am 87:1447–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pap A, Topa L, Berger Z, Flautner L, Varro V (1998) Pain relief and functional recovery after endoscopic interventions for chronic pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 228:98–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Catalano MF, Geenen JE, Schmalz MJ, Johnson GK, Dean RS, Hogan WJ (1995) Treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts with ductal communication by transpapillary pancreatic duct endoprosthesis. Gastrointest Endosc 42:214–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Libera ED, Siqueira ES, Morais M, Rohr MR, Brant CQ, Ardengh JC, Ferrari AP (2000) Pancreatic pseudocysts transpapillary and transmural drainage. HPB Surg 11:333–338

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Monkemuller KE, Baron TH, Morgan DE (1998) Transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections without electrocautery using the Seldinger technique. Gastrointest Endosc 48:195–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Beckingham IJ, Krige JEJ, Bornman PC, Terblanche J (1997) Endoscopic management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Br J Surg 84:1638–1645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smits ME, Raws EA, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K (1995) The efficacy of endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 42:202–207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box #8109, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Lora Melman, Kathleen Beddow, L. Michael Brunt, Valerie J. Halpin, J. Christopher Eagon, Margaret M. Frisella & Brent D. Matthews

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Interventional Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Riad Azar, Steven Edmundowicz & Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda

Authors
  1. Lora Melman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riad Azar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Beddow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Michael Brunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valerie J. Halpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Christopher Eagon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Margaret M. Frisella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Steven Edmundowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Brent D. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brent D. Matthews.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Melman, L., Azar, R., Beddow, K. et al. Primary and overall success rates for clinical outcomes after laparoscopic, endoscopic, and open pancreatic cystgastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Endosc 23, 267–271 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0196-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0196-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation