Chronic pancreatitis is a progressive disease characterized by irregular fibrosis, cellular infiltration, and parenchymal loss within the pancreas. Chronic pancreatitis treatment includes lifestyle modifications based on disease etiology, dietary adjustments appropriate for each stage and condition, drug therapy, endoscopic treatments, and surgical treatments. Although surgical treatments of symptomatic chronic pancreatitis provide good pain relief, endoscopic therapies are recommended as the first-line treatment because they are minimally invasive. In recent years, endoscopic therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment method to surgery for managing local complications in patients with chronic pancreatitis. For pancreatic stone removal, a combination of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic extraction is used. For refractory pancreatic duct stones, intracorporeal fragmentation techniques, such as pancreatoscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy, offer additional options. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound has become the primary treatment modality for pancreatic pseudocysts, except in the absence of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. This review focuses on the current status of endoscopic therapies for common local complications of chronic pancreatitis, including updated information in the past few years.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from mainly a diagnostic tool to a treatment method, thanks to newer noninvasive techniques like magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This paper looks at how ERCP is used to treat conditions such as acute gallstone pancreatitis, pancreas divisum (PD), sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), and chronic pancreatitis (CP). For acute gallstone pancreatitis, early ERCP to reduce severity or mortality is now questioned, except when there is cholangitis or ongoing bile duct blockage. For patients with recurring acute pancreatitis due to PD, endoscopic treatment aims to lower duct pressure, but there is not enough strong evidence to support its long-term success. In SOD cases, recent research suggests being more careful with endoscopic sphincterotomy. ERCP plays a clearer role in CP by helping to manage duct stones and strictures in suitable patients. The rising use of pancreatoscopy-assisted lithotripsy as an alternative to ESWL is also discussed.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a leading gastrointestinal disease that causes hospitalization. Initial management in the first 72 h after the diagnosis of AP is pivotal, which can influence the clinical outcomes of the disease. Initial management, including assessment of disease severity, fluid resuscitation, pain control, nutritional support, antibiotic use, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in gallstone pancreatitis, plays a fundamental role in AP treatment. Recent updates for fluid resuscitation, including treatment goals, the type, rate, volume, and duration, have triggered a paradigm shift from aggressive hydration with normal saline to goal-directed and non-aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's solution. Evidence of the clinical benefit of early enteral feeding is becoming definitive. The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics is generally limited, and the procalcitonin-based algorithm of antibiotic use has recently been investigated to distinguish between inflammation and infection in patients with AP. Although urgent ERCP (within 24 h) should be performed for patients with gallstone pancreatitis and cholangitis, urgent ERCP is not indicated in patients without cholangitis. The management approach for patients with local complications of AP, particularly those with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, is discussed in detail, including indications, timing, anatomical considerations, and selection of intervention methods. Furthermore, convalescent treatment, including cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis, lipid-lowering medications in hypertriglyceridemia-induced AP, and alcohol intervention in alcoholic pancreatitis, is also important for improving the prognosis and preventing recurrence in patients with AP. This review focuses on recent updates on the initial and convalescent management strategies for AP.

Managing pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains a challenge for many clinicians. Recently, significant progress has been made in the therapy of PFCs, including improvements in technology and devices, as well as in the development of minimally invasive endoscopic techniques, many of which are proven less traumatic when compared with surgical options and more efficacious when compared with percutaneous techniques. This review will explore latest developments in the management of PFCs and how they incorporate into the current treatment algorithm.

Acute pancreatitis can range from a mild, self-limiting disease requiring no more than supportive care, to severe disease with life-threatening complications. With the goal of providing a recommendation framework for clinicians to manage acute pancreatitis, and to contribute to improvements in national health care, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) established the Korean guidelines for acute pancreatitis management in 2013. However, many challenging issues exist which often lead to differences in clinical practices. In addition, with newly obtained evidence regarding acute pancreatitis, there have been great changes in recent knowledge and information regarding this disorder. Therefore, the KPBA committee underwent an extensive revision of the guidelines. The revised guidelines were developed using the Delphi method, and the main topics of the guidelines include the following: diagnosis, severity assessment, initial treatment, nutritional support, convalescent treatment, and the treatment of local complications and necrotizing pancreatitis. Specific recommendations are presented, along with the evidence levels and recommendation grades.

Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies.

We performed a long-term post-hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75:41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored.

DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted-OR2.52 [95%-CI 1.62-3.93]), new-onset organ failure (adjusted-OR2.26 [95%-CI 1.45-3.55]), infected necrosis (adjusted-OR4.63 [95%-CI 2.87-7.64]) and pancreatic interventions (adjusted-OR7.55 [95%-CI 4.23-13.96]). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (adjusted-OR9.71 [95%-CI 5.37-18.30], recurrent pancreatitis (adjusted-OR2.08 [95%-CI 1.32-3.29]), chronic pancreatitis (adjusted-OR2.73 [95%-CI 1.47-5.15]) and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (adjusted-OR1.63 [95%-CI 1.05-2.53]).Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (CT), (OR9.49 [95%-CI 6.31-14.29] and a high levels of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10 points increase, OR1.02 [95%-CI 1.00-1.03] were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD.

At least one of every four patients with necrotizing pancreatitis suffer from DPD which is associated with detrimental, short and long-term interventions and complications. Central and subtotal pancreatic necrosis and high levels of serum CRP in the first 48 hours are independent predictors for DPD.

The review is devoted to diagnosis and treatment of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) in patients with acute pancreatitis. Data on terminology, indications and options for endoscopic transluminal interventions are presented in detail. The results of numerous studies evaluating clinical efficacy of various endoscopic and open surgical procedures are analyzed. Available data confirm advisability of staged treatment of DPDS with primary endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid accumulations in specialized centers.

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an inflammatory process characterized by irreversible morphological changes in the pancreas. Pain is the predominant symptom observed during the course of CP. The etiopathogenesis of pain in CP is multifactorial and includes ductal hypertension due to obstruction of the pancreatic duct (PD), neuropathic causes, and extrapancreatic complications of CP like pseudocyst and distal biliary obstruction. A sizeable proportion of patients with CP are amenable to endoscopic treatment. The mainstay of endotherapy includes decompression of PD with one or more plastic stents in those with stricture, and fragmentation of PD calculi using extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Nearly two-thirds of the patients achieve pain relief in the long term with endotherapy. Upfront assessment for the suitability of endotherapy is paramount to achieve the best outcomes. The predictors of poor response to endotherapy include multifocal disease, like those with multifocal strictures or multiple calculi throughout the pancreas, or a combination of both PD strictures and stones. With the emerging use of covered metal stents, the outcomes are likely to improve in cases with refractory PD strictures as well as CP-related distal biliary obstruction. The optimum stent design and indwell time of metal stents in cases with refractory PD strictures need further evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasonography has emerged as a complementary endoscopic modality in the management of CP as well as associated complications like pseudocysts, refractory pain, and vascular complications.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to develop medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to develop medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts (PPCs) compared with laparoscopic treatment.

The Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Chinese citation database, and WANFANG database were systematically searched to identify all comparative trials investigating endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for PPC. The main outcome measures included treatment success rate, adverse events, recurrence rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay.

Six studies with 301 participants were included. The results suggested that there was no difference in rates of treatment success (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-2.01; P = 0.79), adverse events (OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.38-1.70; P = 0.57), or recurrence (OR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.22-1.40; P = 0.21) between endoscopic and laparoscopic treatments. However, the endoscopic group exhibited reduced operation time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -67.11; 95% CI, -77.27 to -56.96; P < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -65.23; 95% CI, -103.38 to -27.08; P < 0.001), and hospital stay (WMD, -2.45; 95% CI, -4.74 to -0.16; P = 0.04).

Endoscopic treatment might be suitable for PPC patients.

Splenectomy or distal pancreatectomy (DP) is sometimes performed for optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). In particular, it is considered to remove tumors involving the splenic hilum or the capsule of the spleen to secure tumor-free margins sufficiently. For splenectomy, the gastro-splenic ligament is opened, and the short gastric vessels are dissected. After the splenocolic ligament and splenic flexure of the colon are transected, the peritoneal attachments, including the splenorenal and splenophrenic ligaments, are divided to mobilize the spleen, and then the splenic artery and vein are identified and ligated separately. If DP is needed for en bloc resection of tumors, a linear cutting stapler is used to remove the tail of the pancreas, and suture reinforcement with 2-0 or 3-0 prolene on the cut section of the pancreas is performed to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Immunization with a polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine is required after splenectomy to avoid overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI) caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae. If POPF occurs after splenectomy or DP, continued drainage with close monitoring is needed with the administration of board spectrum antibiotics in grade A or B POPF according to the criteria of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF). In contrast, grade C POPF requires aggressive management using nothing by mouth, total parenteral nutrition, and somatostatin analogs, and sometimes reoperation if deteriorating signs such as sepsis and organ dysfunction. Thus, the effort for preserving pancreatic tail is needed to reduce hospitalization and the risk of POPF despite the minimal impact of DP on the success rate of optimal cytoreduction.

Since the original description of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) in 1761 by Morgagni, their diagnosis, description, and management have continued to evolve. The mainstay of therapy for symptomatic PFCs has been the creation of a communication between a PFC and the stomach, to enable drainage. Surgical creation of these drainage conduits had been the gold standard of therapy; however, there has been a paradigm shift in recent years with an increasing role of endoscopic drainage. The techniques of endoscopic drainage have evolved from blind fluid aspiration to include endoscopic necrosectomy and the placement of lumen-apposing metal stents.

Acute pancreatitis can result in a number of localized complications such as pancreatic pseudocysts, walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS). The management of these conditions has evolved over the past three decades such that minimally invasive endoscopic drainage and debridement methods are now the favored, first-line approach. This article will review the latest developments and controversies regarding the endoscopic management of these conditions.

For patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, it remains to be clear what the role of routine ERCP is in this population. For WON, it is clear that when expertise is available, a minimally invasive approach may be the most suitable option. There is a growing literature raising concern about LAMS-associated bleeding in this group, however. Alterations in LAMS placement and stent dwell time may reduce this risk. Lastly, recognition of the DPDS is an important factor that needs to be recognized whenever present, as these patients will require a long-term management strategy and may require multimodality intervention.

Despite the development of new endoscopic techniques and dedicated devices for managing pancreatic fluid collections and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome, a number of issues remain unresolved in terms of best practice methods.

Pseudocysts evolve from fluid collections and/or disruptions of the pancreatic duct. They may occur secondary to acute pancreatitis, pancreatic trauma, or chronic pancreatitis. Lacking the clinical information, radiologists may inappropriately call a fluid collection or any cystic lesion a pseudocyst. With no clear history of acute pancreatitis or chronic pancreatitis, this is rare. Complications include infection, intracystic hemorrhage, or rupture. Pseudocysts can become painful, especially with chronic pancreatitis, and can cause early satiety and weight loss when their size affects the stomach and bowel. Symptomatic pseudocysts can successfully be drained with via surgical, radiologic, or endoscopic drainage.

Pancreatic fluid collections are a frequent complication of acute pancreatitis. The revised Atlanta criterion classifies chronic fluid collections into pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Symptomatic PFCs require drainage options that include surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic approaches. With the advent of newer and more advanced endoscopic tools and expertise, minimally invasive endoscopic drainage has now become the preferred approach. An endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided approach for pancreatic fluid collection drainage is now the preferred endoscopic approach. Both plastic stents and metal stents are efficacious and safe; however, metal stents may offer an advantage, especially in infected pseudocysts and in WON. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is often required in WON. Lumen apposing metal stents allow for direct endoscopic necrosectomy and debridement through the stent lumen and are now preferred in these patients. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic duct exploration should be performed concurrent to PFC drainage in patients with suspected PD disruption. PD disruption is associated with an increased severity of pancreatitis, an increased risk of recurrent attacks of pancreatitis and long-term complications, and a decreased rate of PFC resolution after drainage. Ideally, pancreatic ductal disruption should be bridged with endoscopic stenting.

The incidence of acute pancreatitis in children has increased over the last few decades. The development of pancreatic fluid collection is not uncommon after severe acute pancreatitis, although its natural course in children and adolescents is poorly understood. Asymptomatic fluid collections can be safely observed without any intervention. However, the presence of clinically significant symptoms warrants the drainage of these fluid collections. Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collection is safe and effective in adults. The use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedure has improved the efficacy and safety of drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, which have not been well studied in pediatric populations, barring a scant volume of small case series. Excellent results of EUS-guided drainage in adult patients also need to be verified in children and adolescents. Endoprostheses used to drain pancreatic fluid collections include plastic and metal stents. Metal stents have wider lumens and become clogged less often than plastic stents. Fully covered metal stents specifically designed for pancreatic fluid collection are available, and initial studies have shown encouraging results in adult patients. The future of endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collection in children appears promising. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes are required to establish their definitive role in the pediatric age group.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may develop due to inflammation secondary to acute and/or chronic pancreatitis, trauma, surgery, or obstruction from solid or cystic neoplasms. PFCs can be drained percutaneously, surgically, or endoscopically with endoscopic ultrasound-guided cyst gastrostomy and/or transpapillary drainage through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There has been a paradigm shift in the endoscopic management of PFCs in the past few years with newer techniques including utilization of self-expanding metal stents and multiport devices. This review is a comprehensive update on the classification of PFC, indications for drainage, optimal approach, and techniques.

Endoscopic drainage is the first-line therapy in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Before endoscopic drainage, clinicians should exclude the presence of pancreatic cystic neoplasms and avoid drainage of immature peripancreatic fluid collections or pseudoaneurysms. The indication for endoscopic drainage is not dependent on absolute cyst size alone, but on the presence of attributable signs or symptoms. Endoscopic management should be performed as part of a multidisciplinary approach in close cooperation with surgeons and interventional radiologists. Drainage may be performed either via a transpapillary approach or a transmural approach; additionally, endoscopic necrosectomy may be performed for patients with walled-off necrosis.

Pancreatic duct (PD) disruptions occur as a result of different etiologies and can be managed medically, endoscopically, or surgically. The aim of this study was to provide an evaluation on the efficacy of endotherapy for treatment of PD disruption in a large cohort of patients and identify factors that predict successful treatment outcome.

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) for transpapillary pancreatic stent placement for PD disruption from 2008 to 2013 at two tertiary referral institutions. PD disruption was defined as extravasation of contrast from the pancreatic duct as seen on ERP. Therapeutic success was defined by resolution of PD leak on ERP, clinical, and/or imaging evaluation.

We evaluated 107 patients (58% male, mean age 53 years) with PD disruption. Etiologies of PD disruption were acute pancreatitis (36%), post-operative (31%), chronic pancreatitis (29%), and trauma (4%). PD disruption was successfully bridged by a stent in 45 (44%) patients. Two patients developed post-sphincterotomy bleeding, two had stent migration, and two patients died as a result of post-ERP related complications. Placement of a PD stent was successful in 103/107 (96%) patients. Therapeutic success was achieved in 80/107 (75%) patients. Non-acute pancreatitis etiologies and absence of complete duct disruption were independent predictors of therapeutic success.

Endoscopic therapy using a transpapillary stent for PD disruption is safe and effective. Absence of complete duct disruption and non-AP etiologies determine a favorable endoscopic outcome.

Endoscopic drainage is the first consideration in treating pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Recent data suggests it may be useful in complicated PFCs as well. Most of the available data assess the use of plastic stents, but scarce data exists on metal stent management of PFCs. The aim of our study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a metal stent in the management of PFCs.

Data were collected prospectively on 47 patients diagnosed with PFCs from March 2007 to August 2011 at 3 tertiary care centers. These patients underwent endoscopic transmural placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS) with antimigratory fins of 10 mm diameter.

The stent was successfully placed in all patients, and left in place an average of 13 weeks (range 0.4-36 weeks). Etiology of the PFC was biliary pancreatitis (23), pancreas divisum (2), trauma (4), hyperlipidemia (3), alcoholic (8), smoking (2), idiopathic (4), and medication-induced (1). PFCs resolved in 36 patients, for an overall success rate of 77%. Complications included fever (3), stent migration (2) and abdominal pain (1).

The use of FCSEMS is successful in the majority of patients with low complication rates. A large sample-sized RCT is needed to confirm if the resolution of PFCs is long-standing.

The 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classification emphasizes accurate characterization of collections that complicate acute pancreatitis: acute peripancreatic fluid collections, pseudocysts, acute necrotic collections, and walled-off necroses. As a result, the role of imaging in the management of acute pancreatitis has substantially increased.

This article reviews the imaging findings associated with acute pancreatitis and its complications on cross-sectional imaging and discusses the role of imaging in light of this revision.

Endoscopic stenting has become a widely method for the management of various malignant and benign pancreatico-biliary disorders. Biliary and pancreatic stents are devices made of plastic or metal used primarily to establish patency of an obstructed bile or pancreatic duct and may also be used to treat biliary or pancreatic leaks, pancreatic fluid collections and to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. In this review, relevant literature search and expert opinions have been used to evaluate the outcome of stenting in biliary and pancreatic benign and malignant diseases.

Peripancreatic fluid collections are a well-known complication of pancreatitis and can vary from fluid-filled collections to entirely necrotic collections. Although most of the fluid-filled pseudocysts tend to resolve spontaneously with conservative management, intervention is necessary in symptomatic patients. Open surgery has been the traditional treatment modality of choice though endoscopic, laparoscopic and transcutaneous techniques offer alternative drainage approaches. During the last decade, improvement in endoscopic ultrasound technology has enabled real-time access and drainage of fluid collections that were previously not amenable to blind transmural drainage. This has initiated a trend towards use of this modality for treatment of pseudocysts. In this review, we have summarised the existing evidence for endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections from published studies.

This article aims to elucidate the classification of and optimal treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts. Various approaches, including endoscopic drainage, percutaneous drainage, and open surgery, have been employed for the management of pancreatic pseudocysts. However, no scientific classification of pancreatic pseudocysts has been devised, which could assist in the selection of optimal therapy. We evaluated the treatment modalities used in 893 patients diagnosed with pancreatic pseudocysts according to the revision of the Atlanta classification in our department between 2001 and 2010. All the pancreatic pseudocysts have course of disease >4 weeks and have mature cysts wall detected by computed tomography or transabdominal ultrasonography. Endoscopic drainage, percutaneous drainage, or open surgery was selected on the basis of the pseudocyst characteristics. Clinical data and patient outcomes were reviewed. Among the 893 patients, 13 (1.5%) had percutaneous drainage. Eighty-three (9%) had type I pancreatic pseudocysts and were treated with observation. Ten patients (1%) had type II pseudocysts and underwent the Whipple procedure or resection of the pancreatic body and tail. Forty-six patients (5.2%) had type III pseudocysts: 44 (4.9%) underwent surgical internal drainage and 2 (0.2%) underwent endoscopic drainage. Five hundred six patients (56.7%) had type IV pseudocysts: 297 (33.3%) underwent surgical internal drainage and 209 (23.4%) underwent endoscopic drainage. Finally, 235 patients (26.3%) had type V pseudocysts: 36 (4%) underwent distal pancreatectomy or splenectomy and 199 (22.3%) underwent endoscopic drainage. A new classification system was devised, based on the size, anatomical location, and clinical manifestations of the pancreatic pseudocyst along with the relationship between the pseudocyst and the pancreatic duct. Different therapeutic strategies could be considered based on this classification. When clinically feasible, endoscopic drainage should be considered the optimal management strategy for pancreatic pseudocysts.

Plastic stents, placed via endoscopy to drain pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), require repeat access. Covered metal stents are larger in diameter and can be inserted in a single step, but can migrate. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a lumen-apposing, covered, self-expanding metal stent (LACSEMS) for PFC drainage.

We performed a prospective study of the outcomes of stent placement in 33 patients (18 men; age, 53 ± 14 y; 28 with chronic pancreatitis) with symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (≥ 6 cm with ≥ 70% fluid content). Subjects were enrolled at 7 tertiary care centers (6 in the United States and 1 in Europe) from October 2011 through August 2013. Cystenterostomies were created based on endoscopist preference. Safety outcomes included infection, bleeding, perforation, tissue injury, and stent migration. Efficacy end points included LACSEMS placement, patency, and removal, as well as 50% or more reduction in PFCs.

The mean size of the patients' PFCs was 9 ± 3.3 cm. LACSEMSs were placed successfully via endoscopic ultrasound guidance in 30 patients (91%); the remaining 3 patients received 2 double-pigtail stents. One subject could not be evaluated because of a pseudoaneurysm. In the patients receiving LACSEMS, PFCs resolved in 27 of 29 (93%). Overall, PFCs resolved in 30 of 33 patients (91%). Endoscopic debridement through the LACSEMS was conducted in 11 subjects. Complications (15%) included abdominal pain (n = 3), spontaneous stent migration, back pain (n = 1), access-site infection, and stent dislodgement (n = 1).

LACSEMS were placed successfully in 91% of subjects with PFCs. Overall, 93% had PFC resolution. Advantages of LACSEMSs over other stents include single-step deployment and the ability to perform endoscopic debridement with minimal stent migration. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01419769.

Endoscopic therapy in chronic pancreatitis (CP) aims to provide pain relief and to treat local complications, by using the decompression of the pancreatic duct and the drainage of pseudocysts and biliary strictures, respectively. This is the reason for using it as first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated CP. The clinical response has to be evaluated at 6-8 weeks, when surgery may be chosen. This article reviews the main possibilities of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) therapies. Endotherapy for pancreatic ductal stones uses ultrasound wave lithotripsy and sometimes additional stone extractions. The treatment of pancreatic duct strictures consists of a single large stenting for 1 year. If the stricture persists, simultaneous multiple stents are applied. In case of unsuccessful ERCP, the EUS-guided drainage of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) or a rendezvous technique can solve the ductal strictures. EUS-guided celiac plexus block has limited efficiency in CP. The drainage of symptomatic or complicated pancreatic pseudocysts can be performed transpapillarily or transgastrically/transduodenally, preferably by EUS guidance. When the biliary stricture is symptomatic or progressive, multiple plastic stents are indicated. In conclusion, as in many fields of symptomatic treatment, endoscopy remains the first choice, either by using ERCP or EUS-guided procedures, after consideration of a multidisciplinary team with endoscopists, surgeons, and radiologists. However, what is crucial is establishing the right timing for surgery.

The transpapillary approach can be used for draining pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) with pancreatic-duct abnormalities. The purpose of this study was to analyze prognostic factors for clinical success of transpapillary drainage.

Data for all patients who underwent transpapillary drainage between November 2000 and September 2009 were obtained by retrospective review and entered into a computerized database. Patient data were prospectively followed up to determine long-term outcomes.

Seventy interventional ERCP procedures were performed for 43 patients. Technical success was 90.7 % (39/43). Overall clinical success was 79.5 % (31/39). Clinical success for pancreatic head pseudocyst was significantly different from that for body or tail pseudocyst (62.5 vs. 91.3 %, P = 0.043). Logistic regression analysis showed that location of the PPs predicted the success of endoscopic transpapillary pseudocyst drainage (P = 0.025).

Transpapillary drainage is the least traumatic approach for drainage of PPs, and is also effective for patients with no communicating pseudocysts. Clinical success for pancreatic body or tail pseudocyst drainage was higher than that for pancreatic head pseudocyst drainage. It was found that the location of PPs predicted the success of transpapillary pseudocyst drainage. None of the other factors tested was a significant predictor of clinical success.

Pancreatic duct leaks can occur as a result of both acute and chronic pancreatitis or in the setting of pancreatic trauma. Manifestations of leaks include pseudocysts, pancreatic ascites, high amylase pleural effusions, disconnected duct syndrome, and internal and external pancreatic fistulas. Patient presentations are highly variable and range from asymptomatic pancreatic cysts to patients with severe abdominal pain and sepsis from infected fluid collections. The diagnosis can often be made by high-quality cross-sectional imaging or during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Because of their complexity, pancreatic leak patients are best managed by a multidisciplinary team comprised of therapeutic endoscopists, interventional radiologists, and surgeons in the field of pancreatic interventions. Minor leaks will often resolve with conservative management while severe leaks will frequently require interventions. Endoscopic treatments for pancreatic duct leaks have replaced surgical interventions in many situations. Interventional radiologists also have the ability to offer therapeutic interventions for many leak patients. The mainstay of endotherapy for pancreatic leaks is transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting with a stent that bridges the leak if possible, but varies based on the manifestation and clinical presentation. Fluid collections that result from leaks, such as pseudocysts, can often be treated by endoscopic transluminal drainage with or without endoscopic ultrasound or by percutaneous drainage. Endoscopic interventions have been shown to be effective and have an acceptable complication rate.

Pancreatitis, whether acute or chronic, can lead to a plethora of complications, such as fluid collections, pseudocysts, fistulas, and necrosis, all of which are secondary to leakage of secretions from the pancreatic ductal system. Partial and side branch duct disruptions can be managed successfully by transpapillary pancreatic duct stent placement, whereas patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome require more complex endoscopic interventions or multidisciplinary care for optimal treatment outcomes. This review discusses the current status of endoscopic management of pancreatic duct leaks and emerging concepts for the treatment of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.

Patients presenting with acute pancreatitis can be complex on different levels. Having a multifaceted approach to these patients is often necessary with radiographic, endoscopic, and surgical modalities all working to benefit the patient. Major surgical intervention can often be avoided or augmented by therapeutic and diagnostic endoscopic maneuvers. The diagnostic role of endoscopy in patients presenting with acute idiopathic pancreatitis can help define specific causative factors and ameliorate symptoms by endoscopic maneuvers. Etiologies of an acute pancreatitis episode, such as choledocholithiasis with or without concomitant cholangitis, microlithiasis or biliary sludge, and anatomic anomalies, such as pancreas divisum and pancreatobiliary ductal anomalies, often improve after endoscopic therapy.

Few studies have described the role of multimodality therapy and the complexity of endoscopic management of pancreatic duct disruption. Our study aim was to analyse and confirm factors associated with the resolution of pancreatic duct disruption.

Over 6 years, retrospective data on patients with pancreatic duct disruption managed endoscopically were retrieved. Success was defined as resolution of the pancreatic duct disruption at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with resolution.

113 patients (78 male) with a mean age 51.3 year were included. Resolution of the pancreatic duct leak occurred in 80 cases (70.2%). 72 cases received transpapillary pancreatic duct stents, with 51 demonstrating resolution of pancreatic duct leak (71%) cystenterostomy was performed in 68 patients with 51 resolved (75%). In partial duct disruptions, pancreatic duct stenting combined with endoscopic drainage of fluid collections resulted in an increased rate of resolution (80%) compared to complete disruptions treated in a similar manner (57%). In complete pancreatic ductal disruptions, transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting had no additional benefit (9/17, 52.9%) compared to cystenterostomy or percutaneous drainage alone (24/34, 70.6%; P=0.61).

Pancreatic duct disruptions require multimodality treatment, addressing not only the integrity of the pancreatic duct but also any fluid collections associated. Partial ductal disruption should be managed by a bridging stent.

Techniques of endoscopic pseudocyst management continue to evolve, but the principles of proper patient selection and careful consideration of the available therapeutic options remain unchanged. Endoscopic management is considered first-line therapy in the treatment of symptomatic pseudocysts. Clinicians should be vigilant in the evaluation of all peripancreatic fluid collections to exclude the presence of a pancreatic cystic neoplasm and avoid draining an immature collection. Expectant management with periodic observation should be considered for the minimally symptomatic patients, even after the traditional 6 weeks of maturation. Further, symptoms, complications, and expansion on serial imaging should prompt intervention by endoscopic, surgical, or percutaneous methods. Pseudocysts should only be punctured when the wall has had sufficient time to mature and after pseudoaneurysm has been ruled out by careful imaging. Small to moderately sized pseudocysts (< 4–6 cm) that communicate with the pancreatic duct are good candidates for endoscopic transpapillary stenting. For larger lesions requiring transmural drainage, EUS guidance is preferable, but good results can be achieved with ENL. EUS may be particularly useful in permitting drainage in patients with suspected perigastric varices or if an endoscopically visible bulge is not apparent. Necrosis is a significant factor for a worse outcome; aggressive debridement with nasocystic or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy-cystic catheter lavage plus manual endoscopic techniques for clearing debris should be used. Endoscopic failure, especially in cases with significant necrosis, should be managed operatively. Percutaneous drainage is a good option for immature infected pseudocysts or in patients who are not optimal candidates for other procedures. Close cooperation between endoscopists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and other healthcare providers is paramount in successfully managing these patients.

While pancreatitis is uncommon in children, pseudocyst development can be a serious complication. Endoscopic drainage of pseudocysts is well established in adults. However, there are limited data regarding this procedure in a pediatric population. The objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pseudocyst drainage in children.

The study group included children (age <18 years) who presented for endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts in whom endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was performed. In those cases with EUS guidance, a 19-gauge needle was used to access the pseudocyst and place a guidewire under fluoroscopic visualization. Needle-knife diathermy and balloon dilation of the tract were performed with subsequent placement of double pig-tailed stents for drainage.

Ten children with mean age of 11.8 years (range 4-17 years) were analyzed for pancreatic pseudocysts due to biliary pancreatitis (n = 4), trauma (n = 2), familial pancreatitis (n = 1), idiopathic pancreatitis (n = 2), and pancreas divisum (n = 1). In eight cases, EUS-guided puncture and stent placement was successful. In the remaining two cases, aspiration of cyst fluid until complete collapse was adequate. As experience increased with EUS examination in children, the therapeutic EUS scope alone was used in 50% of cases for the entire procedure. In all ten cases, successful transgastric endoscopic drainage of pseudocysts was achieved.

Endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts can be achieved safely in children. EUS guidance facilitates optimal site of puncture as well as placement of transmural stents.

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) can have debilitating clinical course due to chronic abdominal pain, malnutrition and related complications. Medical, endoscopic and surgical treatment of CP should aim at control of symptoms, prevention of progression of the disease and correction of complications. Endoscopic management plays a specific role in carefully selected patients as primary interventional therapy when medical measures fail or in high-risk surgical candidates. Endotherapy for CP is utilized also as a bridge to surgery or to assess potential response to pancreatic surgery. In this review we address the role of endotherapy for the relief of obstruction of the pancreatic duct (PD) and bile duct, closure of PD leaks and drainage of pseudocysts in the setting of CP. In addition, endotherapy for relief of pancreatic pain by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for CP is discussed.

Various techniques have been described to achieve definitive resolution of complex acute pancreatitis associated pseudocysts (PACs). Many of these strategies, inclusive of open, minimally invasive, and radiological procedures, are hampered by high recurrence or failed resolution, particularly for PAC near the pancreatic head. The present series describes a multimodal strategy combining a minilaparotomy for anterior gastrostomy for the creation of a stapled posterior cystogastrostomy, placement of an 8F secured silastic tube for intentional formation of a cystogastric fistula tract in combination with gastric drainage, and postduodenal enteral alimentation.

Using a prospectively maintained hepatobiliary database, patients with complex PAC undergoing the above procedures were identified. PAC location, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and time to start enteral feeding were identified. PAC were assessed by computed tomography (CT) scan prior to operation, 1 month after drainage, and patients with PAC resolution were started on oral diet, with the fistula silastic tube kept in place for an additional month.

Over the interval 2003 to 2008, 19 patients were managed with the stated strategy. PACs were located at the pancreatic body/tail in 12 patients, and 7 patients had PAC at the level of the pancreatic head/neck area. In this cohort, prior to surgical drainage, 17/19 patients had undergone failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with decompressive stent placement and 13/19 had a failed percutaneous PAC drainage. There was no perioperative mortality after open surgical drainage. All patients started on jejunal tube feeding 24 h after surgical procedure. Median postoperative LOS was 7 days (4-13). At 1 month, 16/19 (84%) of patients showed complete resolution of the PAC on CT scan and were started on oral diet; 3/19 required additional month for complete resolution. After a mean follow-up of 31 months, there was no PAC recurrences in any of these patients demonstrated on follow-up.

The described strategy is safe, efficient, and allows early restoration of enteral feeding with early hospital discharge. High resolution rates and absence of PAC recurrences in this series supports this approach for complex PAC.

External pancreatic fistulas (EPFs) are a therapeutic challenge. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary nasopancreatic drainage (NPD) in patients with EPF.

Over 12 years, 23 patients (19 males) with EPF underwent attempted endoscopic transpapillary NPD. The end points were fistula closure with healing of pancreatic duct disruption on nasopancreatogram, or need for surgery.

All 23 patients had persistent drain output (>50 mL/day) for >6 weeks. The mean output volume of the fistula was 223 mL (range: 60 mL to 750 mL). Sixteen patients had partial and seven patients had complete pancreatic duct disruption. The NPD could be successfully placed in 21/23 (91.3%) patients. Disruption was bridged in 15 of 16 patients with partial duct disruption. EPF healed in 2-8 weeks of placement of NPD in all of the patients with partial duct disruption that was bridged and there was no recurrence at a mean follow-up of 38 months. The EPF resolved in only 2/6 (33%) patients with complete duct disruption.

External pancreatic fistulas developing following percutaneous drainage of pancreatic fluid collections or surgical necrosectomy can be effectively treated by transpapillary nasopancreatic drain placement especially when there is partial ductal disruption and the disruption can be bridged.

Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis (CP) aims to relieve pain by draining the main pancreatic duct (MPD) and to treat loco-regional complications. Half of patients have complete pain relief five years after treatment, with best results obtained if treatment is performed early after the first pain attack. If MPD obstruction is caused by calcifications, ambulatory extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has become a first-line treatment (9-30% of patients require ERCP during follow-up). If MPD obstruction is caused by stricture(s), insertion of single plastic stent is effective but it requires multiple ERCPs for stent exchanges; other protocols are being investigated. Pseudocysts represent an excellent indication for endoscopic treatment with long-term results similar to those of surgery; endosonography-guided techniques allow treatment of almost any pancreatic pseudocyst. Biliary strictures related to CP are challenging due to a high relapse rate and requirement for multiple ERCP sessions. Significant progress has recently been made with new protocols of temporary biliary stenting (multiple simultaneous plastic stents or covered metallic stents).

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients after Billroth II or Roux-en-Y reconstruction is challenging because of difficulties in insertion of the endoscope into the afferent loop, which is a great distance away from the papilla of Vater, and cannulation into the desired duct from a reverse position. To facilitate ERCP, various endoscopes have been selected according to operator preference. Previously, we reported that an oblique-viewing endoscope (XK-200; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) can contribute to successful performance of ERCP and associated procedures in Billroth II gastrectomy patients. We report here our experience with two post-gastrectomy patients with chronic pancreatitis who were treated with an oblique-viewing endoscope from the minor papilla.

Pancreatic pseudocysts are a common complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis. They are diagnosed with imaging studies and can be treated successfully with a variety of methods: endoscopic transpapillary or transmural drainage, percutaneous catheter drainage, laparoscopic surgery, or open pseudocystoenterostomy.

Relevant publications that appeared from 1975 to 2008 were retrieved from the MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases for this review.

Endoscopic pseudocyst drainage has a high success rate (79.2%) and a low complication rate (12.9%). Percutaneous drainage is mainly used for the emergency treatment of infected pancreatic pseudocysts. Open internal drainage and pseudocyst resection are surgical techniques with high success rates (>92%), but also higher morbidity (16%) and mortality (2.5%) than endoscopic treatment (mortality 0.7%). Laparoscopic pseudocystoenterostomy, a recently introduced procedure, is probably similar to the endoscopic techniques with regard to morbidity and mortality.

An interdisciplinary approach is best suited for the safe and effective stage-specific treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. The different interventional techniques that are currently available have yet to be compared directly in randomized trials.

To evaluate the role of endoscopic drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy in the management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection.

The clinical data of patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection referred for endoscopic drainage were captured prospectively and analyzed. Pancreatic duct disruption was treated with stenting. Endosonography-guided transmural drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy were performed when indicated.

Fifteen consecutive patients (mean age 53.7 years; range 23-82 years) underwent endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections (pseudocysts: six; abscesses: six; infected walled-off necrosis: three). Pancreatic duct fistulas were present in 13 patients. The drainage techniques used were: (i) transpapillary drainage; five; (ii) transmural drainage; two (these two patients had no pancreatic duct fistulas); and (iii) combined transpapillary and transmural drainage; eight. An additional transgastric endoscopic necrosectomy was performed in five patients. The endoscopic treatment was successful in all cases. The only complication was asymptomatic pneumo-peritoneum that occurred in one patient. Combined transpapillary and transmural drainage led to the faster resolution of the fluid collection compared to transpapillary drainage (75.6 vs 147 days, P = 0.03). No recurrence occurred over a mean follow up of 486 days.

Endoscopic drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy are safe and effective techniques for the treatment of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection.

Compare patient characteristics and outcome and also physician referral patterns between surgically and nonsurgically managed patients with pancreatic pseudocysts.

Treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts can be accomplished by surgical, endoscopic, or percutaneous procedures. The ideal treatment method has not yet been defined.

All patients treated for pancreatic pseudocyst between 1999 and 2005 were identified in our health services database. Patients were treated with surgical, endoscopic, and percutaneous drainage procedures at the discretion of the treating physician. Main outcome measures included complications, pseudocyst resolution, and treatment modality as a function of the treating physician's specialty.

Thirty patients (49%) were treated surgically, 24 endoscopically (39%), and 7 (11%) with percutaneous drainage. The most common indications for treatment were symptoms of pain, and biliary or gastric outlet obstruction (81%). Patients treated surgically and endoscopically were similar in terms of age (49 vs. 52 y), mean cyst diameter (9.1 vs. 9.5 cm, P=0.74), incidence of chronic pancreatitis (50% vs. 32%, P=0.26) and complicated pancreaticobiliary disease (69% vs. 60%). There were no differences in complications (20% vs. 21%) or pseudocyst resolution (93.3% vs. 87.5%, P=0.39) between the surgical and endoscopic groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment in patients initially evaluated by surgeons versus nonsurgeons.

Surgical and endoscopic interventions for pancreatic pseudocysts are equally safe and effective with percutaneous drainage playing a less important role. Endoscopic drainage should be considered for initial therapy in appropriate patients.

A 35-year-old man, a chronic alcohol consumer with clinical features of acute pancreatitis, presented with obstructive jaundice and melena. On radiological evaluation two large pseudocysts, one each in relation to pancreatic head and tail regions, were noted with a gastro-duodenal artery pseudoaneurysm in the pseudocyst in the head region. He also had narrowing of the common bile duct. On endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) he had evidence of chronic pancreatitis with morphology of pancreas divisum with disruption of both the dorsal and ventral ducts. After the relieving of bile duct obstruction with endoscopically placed stent, he underwent surgery for the pseudoaneurysm and the two pseudocysts. The case highlights the rare occurrence of both dorsal and ventral ductal disruption in a patient with pancreas divisum. ERCP was helpful in providing the diagnosis and guiding further management.

The management of pancreatic pseudocysts varies, based mainly on local traditions, resources and expertise. No prospective, randomized study has been done comparing different approaches to treatment. The aim of the present study was to identify current treatment strategies in Sweden.

A questionnaire comprising 12 questions was e-mailed to the surgical departments of all hospitals (n=58) treating patients with pancreatitis. Comparisons were made between university and non-university hospitals and between hospitals with 150,000 or more persons versus less in the primary catchment area.

Fifty-one hospitals responded (88%). In median, 4 (0-25) patients were treated yearly due to pancreatic pseudocysts at each hospital. Five hospitals had written guidelines. Multidisciplinary team conferences were held at 36/48 centres. Treatment strategies for acute compared to chronic pancreatitis associated pseudocysts differed significantly depending on the underlying diagnosis in the major hospitals (p=0.005). Overall, 21/49 hospitals refer some of these patients and 15/50 of the departments state that they regularly assist in taking care of patients with pancreatic pseudocysts from other hospitals. The chosen treatment modalities vary widely, above all concerning endoscopic drainage, which is more common for symptomatic non-infected pseudocysts (p=0.005) as well as infected pseudocysts (p=0.004) in university hospitals.

The lack of protocols and management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts is reflected by the heterogeneity in treatment strategies, as seen in the present survey. Therefore patients may be at risk of receiving suboptimal treatment. A tailored therapeutic approach that takes into consideration patient preferences and involves a multidisciplinary team should be considered in all cases.

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.

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.

There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) in the mean patient age (years), gender, body mass index (BMI) (kg/m(2)), 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).

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.