Frank Fueldner

Endoscopic papillectomy: Data of a prospective observational study

AIM To investigate the clinical value of endoscopic papillectomy indicated by feasibility and safety of the procedure in various diseases of the papilla in a representative number of patients in a setting of daily clinical and endoscopic practice and care by means of a systematic prospective observational study. METHODS Through a defined time period, all consecutive patients with tumor-like lesions of the papilla, who were considered for papillectomy, were enrolled in this systematic bicenter prospective observational study, and subdivided into 4 groups according to endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) findings as well as histopathological diagnosis: adenoma; carcinoma/neuroendocrine tumor (NET)/lymphoma; papilla into which catheter can not be introduced; adenomyomatosis, respectively. Treatment results and outcome were characterized by R0 resection, complication, recurrence rates and tumor-free survival. RESULTS Over a 7-year period, 58 patients underwent endoscopic papillectomy. Main symptoms prompting to diagnostic measures were unclear abdominal pain in 50% and cholestasis with and without pain in 44%. Overall, 54/58 patients [inclusion rate, 93.1%; sex ratio, males/females = 25/29 (1:1.16); mean age, 65 (range, 22-88) years] were enrolled in the study. Prior to papillectomy, EUS was performed in 79.6% (n = 43/54). Group 1 (adenoma, n = 24/54; 44.4%): 91.6% (n = 22/24) with R0 resection; tumor-free survival after a mean of 18.5 mo, 86.4% (n = 19/22); recurrence, 13.6% (n = 3/22); minor complications, 12.5% (n = 3/24). Group 2 (carcinoma/NET/lymphoma, n = 18/54; 33.3%): 75.0% (n = 10/18) with R0 resection; tumor-free survival after a mean of 18.5 (range, 1-84) mo, 88.9% (n = 8/9); recurrence, 11.1% (n = 1/9). Group 3 (adenomyomatosis, n = 4/54; 7.4%). Group 4 (primarily no introducible catheter into the papilla, n = 8; 14.8%). The overall complication rate was 18.5% (n = 10/54; 1 subject with 2 complications): Bleeding, n = 3; pancreatitis, n = 7; perforation, n = 1 (intervention-related mortality, 0%). In summary, EUS is a sufficient diagnostic tool to preoperatively clarify diseases of the papilla including suspicious tumor stage in conjunction with postinterventional histopathological investigation of a specimen. Endoscopic papillectomy with curative intention is a feasible and safe approach to treat adenomas of the papilla. In high-risk patients with carcinoma of the papilla with no hints of deep infiltrating tumor growth, endoscopic papillectomy can be considered a reasonable treatment option with low risk and an approximately 80% probability of no recurrence if an R0 resection can be achieved. In patients with jaundice and in case the catheter can not be introduced into the papilla, papillectomy may help to get access to the bile duct. CONCLUSION Endoscopic papillectomy is a challenging interventional approach but a suitable patient- and local finding-adapted diagnostic and therapeutic tool with adequate risk-benefit ratio in experienced hands.

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

AIM To evaluate the use of translumenal pancreatography with placement of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct. METHODS This study enrolled all consecutive patients between June 2002 and April 2014 who underwent EUS-guided pancreatography and subsequent placement of a drain and had symptomatic retention of fluid in the pancreatic duct after one or more previous unsuccessful attempts at endoscopic retrograde cannulation of the pancreatic duct. In all, 94 patients underwent 111 interventions with one of three different approaches: (1) EUS-endoscopic retrograde drainage with a rendezvous technique; (2) EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct; and (3) EUS-guided, internal, antegrade drainage of the pancreatic duct. RESULTS The mean duration of the interventions was 21 min (range, 15-69 min). Mean patient age was 54 years (range, 28-87 years); the M:F sex ratio was 60:34. The technical success rate was 100%, achieving puncture of the pancreatic duct including pancreatography in 94/94 patients. In patients requiring drainage, initial placement of a drain was successful in 47/83 patients (56.6%). Of these, 26 patients underwent transgastric/transbulbar positioning of a stent for retrograde drainage; plastic prostheses were used in 11 and metal stents in 12. A ring drain (antegrade internal drainage) was placed in three of these 26 patients because of anastomotic stenosis after a previous surgical intervention. The remaining 21 patients with successful drain placement had transpapillary drains using the rendezvous technique; the majority (n = 19) received plastic prostheses, and only two received metal stents (covered self-expanding metal stents). The median follow-up time in the 21 patients with transpapillary drainage was 28 mo (range, 1-79 mo), while that of the 26 patients with successful transgastric/transduodenal drainage was 9.5 mo (range, 1-82 mo). Clinical success, as indicated by reduced or absence of further pain after the EUS-guided intervention was achieved in 68/83 patients (81.9%), including several who improved without drainage, but with manipulation of the access route. CONCLUSION EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a safe, feasible alternative to endoscopic retrograde drainage when the papilla cannot be reached endoscopically or catheterized.

Successful transgastric pancreaticography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of a disconnected pancreatic tail syndrome

Objectives: We aim to demonstrate that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transgastric pancreaticography/drainage of the pancreatic duct is feasible and successful in healing a persisting pancreaticocutaneous fistula. Methods: By means of a case report, we describe the following alternative therapeutic procedure. A 76-year-old male had: (1) 10 surgical interventions because of necrotizing acute pancreatitis with a persisting pancreaticocutaneous fistula (volume 200–300 ml/day); (2) an unsuccessful attempt of transpapillary drainage (disrupted duct after necrosectomy). He then underwent a EUS-guided transluminal pancreaticography/drainage of the pancreatic duct. A transgastric puncture was performed followed by, insertion of a guide wire into the dilated tail segment, and expansion of the gastropancreaticostomy using a 10-Fr retriever. A 10-Fr Amsterdam prosthesis was then placed through the guide wire. Results: The procedure was both a technical and clinical success as indicated by fistula occlusion and sufficient internal drainage of the pancreatic juice via the gastropancreaticostomy. No severe complications such as bleeding, perforation stent occlusion or migration were observed during the 15-month follow-up. Conclusions: Transgastric pancreaticography and EUS-guided drainage of the enlarged pancreatic duct are elegant and feasible alternative options for the treatment of specific pancreatic lesions such as persisting pancreaticocutaneous fistula (complication after necrotizing pancreatitis), after pancreatic resective surgery, chronic pancreatitis and anomaly of the congenital pancreatic or postoperative gastrointestinal anatomy. Moreover, the procedure may represent a valid tool to avoid surgery and more invasive interventions.

A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasonography criteria to guide management in upper GI submucosal tumors.

UNLABELLED Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can differentiate between impression and submucosal tumor (SMT) but it is not known whether EUS criteria can reliably guide management. The aim of this prospective study was to assess an approach to recommend removal versus follow-up investigation based on clinical and EUS criteria, with respect to the predictive values to recognize malignancy versus benign lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS Over a 7-years time period, all patients referred for the EUS assessment of submucosal upper GI lesions were prospectively enrolled. Extraluminal impressions diagnosed with EUS were not further considered. If submucosal tumors seen with EUS were clearly symptomatic or one of several parameters (tumor size >3 cm, irregular margins, inhomogeneous echotexture and/or enlarged lymph nodes) were found, resection was recommended. The remaining cases were subjected to EUS follow-up. RESULTS Of cases with 241 submucosal lesions, 65 had impressions and 176 had true submucosal lesions. Of the latter, 29 cases had non-neoplastic lesions (cysts, varices). In 59 cases, removal was deemed necessary due to clinical symptoms and suspicious findings in conventional endoscopy. These subjects underwent either surgical (originating layer, muscularis propria) or endoscopic resection (submucosal origin): 35.6% were malignant, more frequently in the surgical group (41.6% vs 20%). However, in 52.5% (n=31) of the 59 cases with no severe symptoms and true SMT, EUS suggested removal because of their additional criteria. Eighteen patients (12.2%) refused SMT removal and even regular EUS-based follow-up investigation. Clinical follow-up investigation by the family practitioner did not show frank malignancy in these cases (retransferal not registered). Follow-up investigation with EUS was recommended in 70 cases (mean follow-up period, 5 years; range, 1-7 years). The pattern remained unchanged in 67/70, and 2 of the 3 cases with changes underwent surgery for benign leiomyoma (patient refusal, n=1 with no change in the one-year follow-up MRI). CONCLUSIONS An EUS strategy based on defined characteristics to remove SMT with no severe symptoms and suspicious finding in the conventional endoscopy shows a good adherence to the recommended approach and has a reasonable positive predictive value for malignancy (88%). Clinical symptoms alone or with endoscopic finding are frequently too vague to decide for a reasonable SMT resection. The chosen EUS criteria are valuable to: 1) achieve the primary resection of all potentially malignant SMT and 2) avoid to overlook them as shown by the results of the follow-up investigations with no detected malignant lesion.