Transgastric pancreatography and EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Endoscopic transpapillary drainage of the retained pancreatic duct in symptomatic patients with chronic pancreatitis is considered an established treatment option. The aim of this study was to investigate, as an alternative, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transgastric pancreatography and drainage of the pancreatic duct, in terms of their feasibility and outcome.

METHODS: All consecutive symptomatic patients with failure of the traditional approach to catheterize and drain the pancreatic duct, over a 3-year time period, were enrolled in this prospective, observational single-center study (case series). Feasibility was characterized by success rate, outcome by complication rate (frequency of bleeding or perforation), mortality, and follow-up.

RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent 14 interventions (sex ratio, M/F, 10:4; age range, 43-77 years) from November 2002 to October 2005. The main indication was retention of the pancreatic duct associated with pain, in particular: (i) papilla not reachable because of prior gastrointestinal surgery (n = 5); and (ii) not possible to introduce the catheter through the papilla in chronic pancreatitis or "pancreas divisum" (n = 7). Pancreatography was successful in all patients (normal finding with no therapeutic consequence, n = 1 [after pancreaticojejunostomy]), whereas drainage of the pancreatic duct was achieved in 9 patients (69%; attempts, n = 13). The transgastric route was used in 5 patients and the transpapillary route (rendezvous technique with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]) in 4. There was a complication rate of 42.9%, comprising postinterventional pain (n = 4; 28.6%); bleeding (n = 1); and perforation because of retriever problems (n = 1). The postinterventional pancreatitis rate was 0% and mortality was 0%. The follow-up investigation (range, 4 weeks - 3 years) revealed that 4 patients (28.6%) subsequently underwent surgical intervention, because of duodenal stenosis (n = 1; 7.1%), suspicious tumor growth (n = 1; 7.1%), and insufficient drainage of the pancreatic duct (n = 2; 14.3%). In 2 subjects (14.3%), endoscopic reinterventions became necessary, which were subsequently successful. There were the following technical problems: 1) Too dense stenosis (n = 3); 2) inadequate equipment (insufficient infeed of the endoscopic tool because of its bending), in each case.

CONCLUSIONS: Transgastric pancreatography and EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct are reasonable and feasible alternative options for diagnostic and therapeutic management for selected indications (chronic pancreatitis; anomaly of the congenital pancreatic or postoperative gastrointestinal anatomy), with an acceptable periinterventional risk, which broaden the therapeutic spectrum and may avoid surgery but need further evaluation and follow-up investigation.