Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of ultra-tapered mechanical dilator for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and pancreatic duct drainage compared with electrocautery dilator (with video).

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Successful tract dilation is one of the most important steps to accomplish EUS-guided drainage. Although mechanical dilation is safer than electrocautery dilation, no dedicated mechanical dilator (MD) is currently available. Thus, we developed a new ultra-tapered MD for EUS-guided drainage. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and usefulness of this novel MD.

Patients and methods

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) or EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) at two centers were included in the study. Dilation of the needle tract was initially performed with a diathermic sheath or the ultra-tapered MD. Technical success and adverse events were assessed.

Results

Sixty-four patients (mean age = 68.9 ± 13.8 years, 35 men) underwent EUS-HGS (49 patients) and EUS-PD (15 patients). Thirty-three patients were included in the cautery dilator (CD) group and 31 in the ultra-tapered MD group. Initial dilation of the puncture site was achieved in 95.3% (61/64): 97% (32/33) of the patients in the CD group and 93.3% (29/31) of the patients in the MD group (P < 0.05). Adverse events were observed in 14 patients: abdominal pain in 8 patients and bleeding in 6 patients at the puncture site. All bleedings occurred in the CD group and there was no patient in whom bleeding occurred after EUS intervention in the MD group (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

The novel ultra-tapered MD designed for interventional EUS appears to be safe and useful as it reduced postprocedure bleeding with a high technical success rate compared with the conventional electrocautery dilator.

SUBMITTER: Honjo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6289009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsPelvic fluid collections (PFCs) are frequent adverse events of abdominal surgery or inflammatory conditions. A percutaneous approach to deep PFCs could be challenging and result in a longer, painful recovery. The transvaginal approach has been considered easy but is limited by the difficulty of leaving a stent in place. The transrectal approach has been described, but issues related to fecal contamination were hypothesized. Data on EUS-guided transrectal drainage (EUS-TRD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are few and suggest unsatisfactory outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-TRD with LAMSs in patients with PFCs.MethodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database on therapeutic EUS was conducted. All EUS-TRD procedures were included.ResultsFive patients (2 male, age 44-89 years) were included. Four patients had postoperative PFCs, and 1 presented with a pelvic abscess complicating acute diverticulitis. Two of 5 had fecal diversion; the remaining 3 had unaltered large-bowel anatomy. One case had a concomitant abdominal collection, treated with percutaneous drainage in the same session. An electrocautery-enhanced LAMS delivery system (15 × 10 mm) was used in all cases. EUS-TRD was performed with the direct-puncture technique and lasted less than 10 minutes in 4 cases; in the remaining case, needle puncture and LAMS placement over a guidewire was required, and the procedure length was 14 minutes. The clinical success rate was 100%. LAMSs were removed after a median of 14 (range, 12-24) days. One patient reported partial proximal LAMS migration after 24 days (mild adverse event). No PFC recurrence was observed.ConclusionEUS-TRD with LAMSs is a safe and effective technique for treatment of PFCs. The use of 15- × 10-mm LAMSs allows rapid PFC resolution. EUS-TRD could be performed not only in patients with fecal diversion but also in cases of unaltered anatomy.