Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct (EUS-PD) in postoperative anastomotic stenosis after previous pancreatic resection
Authors: Will Uwe , Füldner Frank , Buechner Theresa , Meyer Frank 
Published: December 2024

As an alternative instead of a repeat surgical intervention, results (feasibility, safety, and technical and clinical success rate) of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) in a consecutive patient cohort because of symptomatic postoperative anastomotic stenosis as part of a unicenter observational study in daily clinical practice are presented.

EUS-guided puncture (19-G needle) of the pancreatic duct, pancreaticography, and advancement of a guide wire (0.035 inches) via the anastomosis into the small intestine after previous dilatation of the transgastric access site (using ring knife): 1. if possible, balloon dilatation of the anastomosis and placement of a prosthesis as a gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy (“ring drainage”, “gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy”); 2. if not possible (frustrating advancement of the guide wire), again, dilatation of the transgastric access site (using ring knife) and balloon dilatation with a following transgastric placement of a prosthesis (pancreaticogastrostomy).

Out of the complete consecutive patient series with EUS-PD (n=119 cases) from 2004 to 2015, 34 patients (28.5%) were found with a medical history significant for previous surgical intervention at the pancreas who were approached using EUS-PD: in detail, pancreatic head resection in 1.) chronic pancreatitis (n=21; 61.8%) and 2.) malignant tumor lesions (n=13; 38.2%), resp. Pancreaticography was achieved in all subjects (n=34/34; rate, 100%). In 9/34 cases, a sufficient flow of contrast media via the anastomotic segment was detected; therefore, drainage was not placed. In the remaining 25 cases, the primary technical success (successful placement of drainage) rate was 64% (n=16/25 cases). In 9/25 patients, only dilatation using the passage of a ring knife over the guide wire and a balloon was performed. In detail, stent insertion was either not necessary because of good contrast flow via anastomosis (n=4) or not successful because of dislocation of the guide wire (n=5). However, these nine subjects underwent reintervention: in five patients, ring drainage (n=3) and transgastric drainage (n=2) were achieved, resulting in the definitive technical (drainage placement) success rate of 84% (n=21/25). In further detail, the two different techniques of drainage insertion such as pancreaticogastrostomy and gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy (ring drainage) were used in 11 patients (plastic stent, n=8; metal stent, n=3 [biliary wallstent, n=2; LAMS, n=1]) and ten subjects, resp.

Finally, long-term clinical success was 92% (n=23/25).

Overall, there were complications in 6/34 individuals (rate, 17.6%): bleeding, pressing ulcer by the stent, abscess within the lower sac, postinterventional pseudocyst (n=1 each), and paraluminal collection of contrast medium (n=2).

Alternative EUS-PD is feasible and safe and can avoid surgical intervention; this can result in a distinct improvement in the quality of life, including an acceptable interventional risk. Because of the high technical demands, EUS-PD should only be performed in centers of interventional EUS, with great expertise in this field. Further clinical long-term observation, greater patient cohorts, evaluation of procedural knowledge and data, and further technical advances are required.