search for




 

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage of postoperative fluid collection after pancreaticoduodenectomy
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2022 Nov;26(4):355-62
Published online November 30, 2022;  https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.22-018
Copyright © 2022 The Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.

Da Hee Woo1, Jae Hoon Lee2, Ye Jong Park2, Woo Hyung Lee2, Ki Byung Song2, Dae Wook Hwang2, Song Cheol Kim2

1Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea,
2Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Jae Hoon Lee, MD, PhD
Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-1521, Fax: +82-2-3010-6701, E-mail: hbpsurgeon@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6170-8729
Received March 15, 2022; Revised May 24, 2022; Accepted May 26, 2022.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: Postoperative fluid collection is a common complication of pancreatic resection without clear management guidelines. This study aimed to compare outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided trans-gastric drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in patients who experienced this adverse event after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
Methods: Demographic and clinical data and intervention outcomes of 53 patients who underwent drainage procedure (EUS-guided, n = 32; PCD, n = 21) for fluid collection after PD between January 2015 and June 2019 in our tertiary referral center were retrospectively analyzed.
Results: Prior to drainage, 83.0% had leukocytosis and 92.5% presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: fever (69.8%), abdominal pain (69.8%), and nausea/vomiting (17.0%). Within 8 weeks of drainage, 77.4% showed a diameter decrease of more than 50% (87.5% in EUS vs. 66.7% in PCD, p = 0.09). Post-procedural intravenous antibiotics were used for an average of 8.1 ± 4.3 days and 12.4 ± 7.4 days for EUS group and PCD group, respectively (p = 0.01). The EUS group had a shorter post-procedural hospital stay than the PCD group (9.8 ± 1.1 vs. 15.8 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.01). However, the two groups showed no statistically significant difference in technical or clinical success rate, reintervention rate, or adverse event rate.
Conclusions: EUS-guided drainage and PCD are both safe and effective methods for managing fluid collection after PD. However, EUS-guided drainage can shorten hospital stay and duration of intravenous antibiotics use.
Keywords : Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Drainage; Pancreas; Endoscopic ultrasonography; Transgastric drainage
INTRODUCTION

Postoperative fluid collection (POFC) is a common complication of a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with high morbidity rates. Although mortality rates associated with pancreatic resection have decreased over recent decades to less than 1% in high-volume centers [1], there has been no significant decrease in the level of morbidity among these cases [2,3]. Various studies have shown from routine computerized tomography (CT) scans that 9%–69% of PD patients develop POFC [4,5], among which 8%–22% of cases require radiologic drainage [6,7]. Indications for drainage include infected or enlarging POFC and symptoms such as abdominal pain, gastric outlet obstruction, biliary obstruction, and fistulation [8]. Surgical drainage and percutaneous drainage have traditionally been the mainstay of POFC management. However, with recent technical advances and the introduction of linear endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the 1990s, EUS-guided drainage has emerged as an alternative to traditional drainage methods [9]. EUS-guided drainage was first described in 1992 [10]. The use of ultrasound in this methodology enables the identification and avoidance of vessels, measurement of the distance from the gastric lumen to the site of fluid collection, and localization of non-bulging fluid collections, leading to higher success rates and lower complication rates compared to conventional transmural drainage [11,12].

As the clinical experience with EUS-guided drainage procedure has accumulated, many studies have reported its outcomes in comparison with the percutaneous approach, especially in pancreatic pseudocysts. However, to the best of our knowledge, no prior study has thoroughly analyzed clinical outcomes of these two drainage procedures for treating POFC complications in PD patients. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare outcomes of EUS-guided drainage and percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in patients who experienced this adverse event after PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records of 2,160 patients who had undergone a PD surgery in our hospital between January 2015 and June 2019 at our center were retrospectively reviewed. Among these cases, 155 had a confirmed POFC by CT scanning. They were further screened for enrolment in our study cohort. Ninety-seven of these patients were treated by conservative management only, such as nil per os (NPO), total parenteral nutrition, and intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Twenty-one of these 155 cases underwent PCD whereas 32 received EUS-guided drainage as the primary drainage procedure. One patient underwent both drainage procedures simultaneously due to separately loculated fluid collections. This case was excluded from further analysis. There were two cases of embolization due to active bleeding from pseudoaneurysm. There were two cases of reoperation (abscess drainage and irrigation) for two patients with unstable vital signs. These four cases received embolization or reoperation without prior or concomitant intervention. Finally, 32 patients who received EUS-guided drainage and 21 patients who underwent PCD were selected as our study population (Fig. 1). All follow-up electronic medical records up to December 2019 were reviewed for these cases. Demographic data, symptoms, lab data, fluid culture results, antibiotic regimens, POFC diameters on CT image, and drainage outcomes were analyzed for these included patients. In terms of the PD procedure, a duct to mucosa method with an internal stent was routinely performed for pancreaticojejunostomies. Two to three surgical drains were routinely placed around pancreaticojejunostomy, choledochojejunostomy, and gastrojejunostomy anastomosis depending on the surgeon’s preference and judgment. Daily drain amylase and lipase levels were checked until postoperative day 3. If there was no biochemical leak or clinical derangement from the routine postoperative course and the drain color was serous, drains were removed starting from postoperative day 3. If there were any abnormalities in drain amylase/lipase levels, drain color/amount, and clinical signs or symptoms, drains were kept in place for as long as they were needed.

Fig 1. Selection of study population. Of 2,160 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between January 2015 and June 2019, there were 155 cases of postoperative fluid collection (POFC). Among them, 32 cases of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD)
and 21 cases of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage were selected as our study population. ENCD, endoscopic nasocystic drainage; CGS, cystogastrostomy.

A routine CT check was done on postoperative day 5 which helped surgeons determine the optimal time for drain removal or the need for additional management and intervention. Indications for drainage included evidence for fluid collection on CT, inflammatory marker elevation, or symptoms such as fever, abdominal pain, and nausea/vomiting. The timing and type of drainage was determined by consultation between the surgeon, gastroenterologist, and interventional radiologist. Given the specificity of pancreas resection, there were several considerations to make in the timing and type of drainage, such as drain amylase and lipase levels, POFC diameter, severity of symptoms, inflammatory marker levels, and vital signs and CT findings. POFC findings on CT scans did not always mean that drainage was needed. Infection sign including high fever/pain/leukocytosis is the most important criterion in judging a need for a drainage procedure. In addition, whether it could be controlled with IV antibiotics only, whether the procedure was possible considering location of POFC, and whether the size was increasing were also factors that were taken into account.

This study was approved by our center’s Institutional Review Board (IRB number: S2020-0679-0001).

EUS-guided drainage

Prior to conducting the EUS-guided drainage procedure, all patients were administered IV midazolam for sedation and meperidine for pain control. EUS was performed using a linear array echoendoscope with fluoroscopic guidance. Once the site of the POFC was determined, the stomach wall was punctured using a needle. The contrast media was then injected to confirm this location. The endoscopist next inserted a guidewire, removed the needle, and dilated the fistula tract. Either a nasocystic drainage catheter, a fully covered self-expanding metal stent, or a double pigtail plastic stent was then inserted through the dilated tract. An endoscopic nasocystic drainage (ENCD) was sometimes additionally inserted at the endoscopist’s discretion during EUS-guided stent insertion. The most important purpose of ENCD was to maintain patency of the internal stent. Additionally, POFCs were often thick. Placing an ENCD could ensure more effective drainage. It could also allow POFC cultures to be taken for the purpose of determining appropriate antibiotics.

Following EUS-guided cystogastrostomy (EUS-CGS), the patient underwent a follow-up CT at about four weeks after the procedure. The stent was removed once resolution of the POFC was confirmed.

Percutaneous drainage

During PCD interventions, patients were given IV meperidine prior to the procedure for pain control. A needle was inserted into the fluid collection under ultrasonographic guidance. Contrast media was then injected to confirm the POFC location. A pigtail catheter was placed after dilation of the percutaneous tract. A bile bag was connected to the pigtail catheter and daily output was recorded.

Follow-up procedures and parameters

Outcomes were measured using several parameters, including technical success, clinical success, reintervention rates, adverse events, post-procedural IV antibiotic duration, and post-procedural hospital stay. Technical success was defined as the successful placement of a drain stent or catheter at the intended POFC site. Clinical success was analyzed based on POFC diameter decrease of more than 50% on follow-up CT image within eight weeks. The number and interval of CT scan follow-ups and time of discharge were based on the surgeon’s judgement. Reintervention was defined as the need for a subsequent drainage or other types of interventions due to persistent symptoms associated with a residual POFC. Adverse events were unwanted events causing harm to the patient that occurred because of the drainage procedure. They included hemorrhage, perforation, stent migration, and sepsis due to the procedure.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 18.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Univariate analysis was performed using a chi-squared test for categorical variables. A t-test was performed for continuous variables with an even distribution and a Mann-Whitney test was performed for continuous variables with an uneven distribution. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Data values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinical profiles of included study patients

There was no significant difference in sex, age, body mass index, or type of surgery between the two drainage groups (Table 1). Among EUS patients, four received an ENCD insertion only due to a lack of wall maturation, five had both an ENCD and cystogastrostomy (CGS) insertion, and 23 had CGS insertion only as their first drainage procedure.

Table 1 . Demographic and clinical profile of study patients

ParameterEUS-guided drainage (n = 32)Percutaneous catheter drainage (n = 21)p-value
Sex
Male23 (71.9)14 (66.7)0.69
Female9 (28.1)7 (33.3)
Age (yr)58.6 ± 12.663.9 ± 8.40.10
BMI (kg/m2)24.6 ± 2.323.3 ± 2.80.09
Type of PD
Open laparotomy25 (78.1)18 (85.7)0.49
Minimal invasive7 (21.9)3 (14.3)
Pylorus resection14 (43.8)12 (57.1)0.34
Pylorus preservation18 (56.3)9 (42.9)
Pathology
Adenocarcinoma24 (75.0)18 (85.7)
IPMN4 (12.5)1 (4.8)
GIST2 (6.3)1 (4.8)
NET1 (3.1)1 (4.8)
Adenoma1 (3.1)0 (0.0)

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy surgery includes laparoscopic and robot assisted procedures.

EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; BMI, body mass index; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor; NET, neuroendocrine tumor.



Presenting signs and symptoms with laboratory and CT findings prior to drainage

Prior to drainage, 92.5% of study patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: fever (69.8%), abdominal pain (69.8%), and nausea/vomiting (17.0%) (Table 2). Although the remaining 7.5% did not show any of these conditions before the procedure, they still had a confirmed POFC on a CT scan. There was no statistically significant difference in symptom rate or white blood cell count between the two groups. POFC diameters measured on axial CT images ranged from 3.3 cm to 19.1 cm with a mean length of 9.5 cm. The average POFC diameter was greater in the PCD group (11.4 cm in PCD group vs. 8.2 cm in EUS group, p = 0.01).

Table 2 . Presenting symptoms, laboratory results and computerized tomography findings prior to drainage

Clinical parameterEUS-guided drainage (n = 32)Percutaneous catheter drainage (n = 21)p-value
Symptom
Fever
Yes23 (71.9)14 (66.7)0.69
No9 (28.1)7 (33.3)
Abdominal pain
Yes21 (65.6)16 (76.2)0.42
No11 (34.4)5 (23.8)
Nausea/vomiting
Yes6 (18.8)3 (14.3)0.49
No26 (81.2)18 (85.7)
Laboratory results
WBC (103/µL)16.3 ± 5.916.4 ± 6.40.94
CRP (mg/dL)15.9 ± 9.014.3 ± 8.00.50
Size of fluid collection
Mean diameter (cm)8.2 ± 0.511.4 ± 1.00.01

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.

EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; WBC, white blood cell; CRP, C-reactive protein.

Normal range for WBCs, 4,000–10,000/µL.

Normal range for CRP, 0–0.6 mg/dL.



Microbial growth and antibiotic treatments

Among 32 EUS-guided drainage patients, 23 cases had fluid samples taken for microbial culture testing. Culture results were obtained for all cases (n = 21) in the PCD group (Table 3). Prophylactic IV antibiotic regimens of cefotaxime and metronidazole were administered in all patients 30 minutes prior to surgery and routinely used until postoperative day 3. All study patients undergoing drainage procedures either maintained cefotaxime and metronidazole administration for longer than the routine period or escalated to broad spectrum antibiotics. Antibiotics most commonly used are listed in Table 4. The mean IV antibiotic duration from the day of intervention was 8.1 ± 4.3 days for patients in the EUS group and 12.4 ± 7.4 days for patients in the PCD group (p = 0.01).

Table 3 . Most common bacteria found in fluid collection samples from study patients

MicroorganismFrequency
Enterococcus faecium10
Klebsiella pneumoniae7
Pseudomonas aeruginosa6
Citrobacter freundii5
Candida albicans5
No culture growth8


Table 4 . Five most frequently used antibiotics among study patients

AntibioticsFrequency
Piperacillin/tazobactam20
Meropenem18
Metronidazole12
Vancomycin9
Imipenem/cilastatin7


Clinical outcomes

There was no statistically significant difference in rate of technical success, clinical success, reintervention, or adverse events between EUS and PCD groups (Table 5). The mean duration of placement for ENCD was 7.2 ± 5.4 days (n = 9). Unlike CGS, it was possible to record drainage amount with ENCD. This acted as an important factor in deciding the removal time for ENCD. When the drainage amount reduced to almost zero, it meant that the fluid collection was resolved or that the ENCD was ineffective, although there was POFC remaining. In either case, the ENCD did not serve its purpose anymore and needed to be removed. The mean duration of placement for CGS was 46.9 ± 28.0 days (n = 28).

Table 5 . Outcomes of EUS-guided and percutaneous drainage

VariableEUS-guided drainage (n = 32)Percutaneous catheter drainage (n = 21)p-value
Technical success
Yes31 (96.9)21 (100)0.60
No1 (3.1)0 (0.0)
Clinical success
Yes28 (87.5)14 (66.7)0.09
No4(12.5)7 (33.3)
Reintervention
Yes4 (12.5)7 (33.3)0.09
No28 (87.5)14 (66.7)
Adverse events
Yes2 (6.3)0 (0.0)0.51
No30 (93.7)21 (100)
Operation to drainage (day)13.3 ± 5.911.0 ± 4.00.13
Post procedural hospital stay (day)9.8 ± 1.115.8 ± 2.2< 0.01
IV antibiotics duration (day)8.1 ± 4.312.4 ± 7.40.01

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.

EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; FC, fluid collection; IV, intravenous.



There was only one case of technical failure. It occurred in one patient undergoing EUS-guided drainage who had remnant food material in the stomach. Thus, the procedure was postponed. In terms of clinical success, 28 patients in the EUS group and 14 patients in the PCD group showed a POFC diameter decrease of greater than 50% on follow-up CT scan within eight weeks of drainage. All patients showed a decrease in fluid collection diameter on CT follow-up. However, we defined the cutoff for clinical success to be a POFC diameter decrease of 50% for the purpose of this study. Evidence of residual POFC on CT did not mean that it was medically problematic or that management was needed.

In most cases, additional treatment was not required for residual POFC remaining after the procedure because the amount was small without specific clinical signs, symptoms, or lab abnormalities. If careful observation was necessary, the patient’s condition was checked on short interval at the outpatient clinic. If patients showed abnormal signs, symptoms, or lab results, they were treated with antibiotics or underwent reintervention. There were four (12.5%) reintervention cases in the EUS group. Two patients who underwent ENCD only had an additional CGS insertion due to unresolved POFC on imaging studies. One case with CGS only required an ENCD insertion due to an ineffective drainage. In another case, the POFC decreased in the gastrohepatic area where the EUS-CGS had been inserted, but increased in the retrogastric and lower abdominal area. The patient had reintervention with PCD insertion. In the PCD group, there were 7 (33.3%) patients requiring reintervention, including 2 cases of PCD repositioning, 1 PCD change, 2 new PCD insertions, 1 simultaneous PCD change and new PCD insertion, and 1 reinsertion after removal due to an unresolved bile leak. Although there was a higher reintervention rate in the PCD group, the difference was not statistically significant.

There were two cases of adverse event in the EUS group and none in the PCD group. However, the difference between the two groups did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.51). In the EUS group, one patient underwent coil embolization at 7 days after EUS-CGS due to a gastroduodenal artery pseudoaneurysm. There was one case of stent migration which was incidentally found on a follow-up CT.

There was a statistically significant difference in the length of post-procedural hospital stay between the two group. The EUS-guided drainage group showed an average post-procedural hospital stay of 9.8 ± 1.1 days while the PCD group had a longer stay of 15.8 ± 2.2 days (p < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

POFC is a major cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality following PD surgery. In our center, 7.1% of PD patients developed a POFC complication, which was visible on a postoperative CT scan. This POFC frequency was lower than the range of 9%–19% reported in previous studies [13-15]. Drainage procedures were required in 2.5% of PD cases in our hospital, which was again lower than previously reported rates of 8%–22% [6,7]. One possible explanation for these discrepancies is that our institution is a high volume, specialized center with an annual average of 450 PD cases.

Percutaneous or surgical interventions have been the traditional management of symptomatic POFCs. Since the 1990s, however, EUS-guided drainage has emerged as a new option for these interventions. It has been reported to be effective and safe for peripancreatic fluid drainage in multiple studies with clinical success rates of 70%–87% and complication rates of 11%–34% [11,16-18]. Several studies have compared these two drainage approaches for POFC after a distal pancreatectomy [19-23]. But to the best of our knowledge, our current investigation is the first to compare in detail PCD and EUS-guided drainage procedures for POFC complications arising after PD. We believe our findings provide valuable information for optimal drainage modality after PD.

There are several points to consider for drainage in POFC after PD. High drain amylase and lipase levels, larger POFC diameter, unimproved symptoms, high inflammatory markers, and remarkable infection signs necessitate drainage management. Based on CT findings, we could expect whether routine surgical drains would be effective in managing POFC if it was present. If they were deemed to be ineffective, the next step would be deciding the type of drainage. If the patient had unstable vitals such as low blood pressure, high fever, and tachycardia with a concomitant postoperative abscess, surgical drainage should be considered. If the patient was stable enough, percutaneous or endoscopic drainage was considered. The location of the fluid collection was the most important factor when deciding between the two methods. If the POFC was right beneath the peritoneum, then the percutaneous method was preferred. If the POFC was adjacent to the stomach and difficult to approach percutaneously without injuring the bowel or spleen, then EUS-CGS was preferred. We compared the two study groups’ clinical characteristics and outcomes in this study.

The average POFC diameter was greater in the PCD group in our study (11.4 cm in PCD vs. 8.2 cm in EUS). In other studies, POFCs treated using EUS-guided drainage have varied sizes ranging from 7.9 cm to 9.6 cm [22,24]. Kwon et al. [19] have described a mean cyst size of 10 cm for patients undergoing PCD and 8.9 cm in those treated using EUS-guided drainage after a partial pancreatectomy. EUS guided drainage is feasible only if fluid collection is adjacent to the stomach while percutaneous drainage is easier if the collection is located superficially, near the abdominal wall. Most POFCs that underwent EUS drainage in our present patient population were loculated in the lesser sac near the pancreas head resection site. On the other hand, many POFCs that underwent PCD drainage had variable locations, including perihepatic and lower abdomen sites, leading to differences in diameter in our study.

We use prophylactic IV cefotaxime and metronidazole for PD at our center. However, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, metronidazole, vancomycin, and imipenem/cilastatin are most frequently used antibiotics after drainage procedures. Cefotaxime and metronidazole cannot cover Enterococcus or Pseudomonas, which were commonly detected in our current fluid samples. Thus, broader antibiotic coverages were needed. The mean duration of IV antibiotic administration from the day of intervention in our present series was 8.1 ± 4.3 days for the EUS group and 12.4 ± 7.4 days for the PCD group (p = 0.01). The shorter antibiotics usage duration in the EUS group might be due to faster resolution of symptoms and shorter hospital stay in this group because it was difficult to perform IV administration after discharge.

The technical success rate was 96.9% for the EUS group and 100% for the PCD group. There was only one case of technical failure in the EUS group due to remnant gastric content. In our present study cohort, 32 patients had undergone EUS-guided drainage for a POFC. Four of these cases received an ENCD only because no wall maturation was observed in three patients and a fistula was observed in the remaining patient. Our success rates were similar to those described by other studies. Technical success rates of 93.6% to 100% for EUS-guided drainage 97.4% to 100% for PCD have been described [19,20,22,25,26]. Thus, both drainage procedures can be done with a high accuracy using current techniques with adequate clinical experience.

We analyzed clinical success in our current study as greater than 50% decrease in the POFC diameter on a CT scan within eight weeks of the drainage procedure. The definition of clinical success in relation to POFC drainage varied across the published literature. Gupta et al. [24] and Varadarajulu et al. [22] defined this as the resolution of fluid collection on abdominal imaging, in association with clinical resolution of symptoms at eight weeks of follow-up. Their definition was similar to ours. Gupta et al. [24] and Varadarajulu et al. [22] reported clinical success rates of 79% and 100% for EUS-guided drainage, respectively. The present study had a clinical success rate of 87.5%.

There were two (6.3%) cases of adverse events in our current EUS-guided drainage group but none in the PCD group. Other reports have also indicated low complication rates from POFC drainage methods. Song et al. [20] and Kwon et al. [19] have reported zero adverse events from EUS-guided drainage after distal pancreatectomy. One of the reasons is that EUS-guidance has an easier anatomical approach for POFC drain intervention. However, other authors have described higher rates, with 14% being the highest reported [19,20,22,24-26]. Our center’s adverse event rates after EUS-guided drainage are within reasonable range compared to these previous studies.

We observed 4 (12.5%) and 7 (33.3%) reintervention cases in our EUS-guided drainage group and our PCD patients, respectively. Previous studies have reported reintervention rates ranging from 14.5% [20] to 38% [25] with EUS-guided drainage and 19.2% [23] to 41% [26] with PCD involving salvage drainage procedures [19,22,24].

In our current study population, the post-procedural hospital stay was significantly shorter for the EUS group. Because EUS-CGS is an internal drain, surgeons can safely discharge patients with the stent in situ after clinical symptoms have improved and the POFC has decreased in size. On the other hand, PCD involves an external drain that needs to be removed prior to hospital discharge which can be complicated by the risk of residual fluid collection, often leading to a longer hospital stay. Clinicians are also typically more conservative in relation to discharging PCD patients. They often wait until drainage is at least near-complete or there has been complete resolution of the POFC before catheter removal. Notably, however, in a match-controlled cohort study of patients who received pancreatic resection, Al Efishat et al. [26] found no significant difference in hospital stay between the two drainage methods (4 days with EUS-guided drainage vs. 3 days with PCD, p = 0.76). Azeem et al. [23] have analyzed 48 patients with POFC after a distal pancreatectomy and observed a longer median post-procedural hospital stay after primary PCD (5.5 days for PCD vs. 2 days for EUS-guided drainage, p = 0.05). However, both groups in their study showed significantly shorter hospital stays than our present study results. The timing of a hospital discharge can be affected by many factors such as medical cost, insurance coverage, and medical accessibility, which can explain these different results. In the study by Azeem et al. [23], the PCD catheter was in place for a mean of 20 days. It was for a mean of 33 days in Efishat’s study [26]. Taking into consideration the short post procedural hospital stay, we could deduce that patients were discharged shortly after drainage procedure and that their drains were then probably removed during a subsequent out-patient follow-up. On the other hand, many PCD patients at our hospital tend to be discharged after PCD removal because of negative effects of leaving the drain in place on patient’s quality of life (QOL) and the risk of an ascending infection.

This study has some limitations. First, there were inherent limitations of its retrospective and non-randomized design. Another limitation was that we only analyzed patients from our single, academic, tertiary hospital who had been treated by experienced endoscopists and hepatobiliary surgeons. Therefore, our results might not be applicable to smaller centers. Finally, the decision on whether to conduct a PCD or an EUS-guided drainage largely depended on the location of the POFC. In many of our included cases, peripancreatic fluid collections near the stomach were treated using EUS-guided drainage while POFCs with relatively superficial locations underwent PCD. Certain fluid collection locations might be related to better outcomes. However, this was not fully taken into consideration in our present analyses. More analysis regarding the difference in POFC diameter and location is necessary to evidentiary support the shorter length of stay of EUS guided drainage group. However, EUS-guided drainage procedure for fluid collection after PD is still in its early stages. As a result, there was a relatively small study population. Moreover, considering the retrospective nature and non-randomized grouping of patients which are major limitations of this study, it seems difficult to perform an additional analysis for this issue. Nevertheless, we find this study worthwhile in that this is the first study to perform the analysis for initial experiences for EUS guided drainage after PD to the best of our knowledge. As drainage methods are mostly determined by the location of the fluid collection, we believe the longer hospital stay of the PCD group is mainly due to the removal timing of the PCD, not because of the larger size of fluid collection. In this study, we compared two modalities of drainage after PD for the first time to our knowledge. Literature is still scarce on this subject. A multicenter, randomized, prospective study comparing the EUS-guided drainage and PCD approaches is warranted in the future to validate our findings and optimize treatments for POFC complications arising from a PD.

In conclusion, technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, and adverse event rates are comparable between EUS-guided drainage and PCD catheter drainage for the treatment of a POFC after PD. However, the EUS-guided approach is associated with a shorter post procedural IV antibiotic usage and hospital stay.

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: DHW, JHL. Data curation: All authors. Methodology: DHW, JHL. Visualization: DHW. Writing - original draft: DHW. Writing - review & editing: JHL.

References
  1. Morgan DE. Imaging after pancreatic surgery. Radiol Clin North Am 2012;50:529-545.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Berberat PO, Friess H, Kleeff J, Uhl W, Buchler MW. Prevention and treatment of complications in pancreatic cancer surgery. Dig Surg 1999;16:327-336.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Halloran CM, Ghaneh P, Bosonnet L, Hartley MN, Sutton R, Neoptolemos JP. Complications of pancreatic cancer resection. Dig Surg 2002;19:138-146.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Wellner UF, Sick O, Olschewski M, Adam U, Hopt UT, Keck T. Randomized controlled single-center trial comparing pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:1686-1695.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Maehira H, Iida H, Matsunaga T, Yasukawa D, Mori H, Miyake T, et al. The location of perianastomotic fluid collection predicts postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020;405:325-336.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Geschwind JF, Mitchell SE, Venbrux AC, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: role of interventional radiologists in managing patients and complications. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7:209-219.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Zink SI, Soloff EV, White RR, Clary BM, Tyler DS, Pappas TN, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: frequency and outcome of post-operative imaging-guided percutaneous drainage. Abdom Imaging 2009;34:767-771.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Jacobson BC, Baron TH, Adler DG, Davila RE, Egan J, Hirota WK, et al. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and the management of cystic lesions and inflammatory fluid collections of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:363-370.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Varadarajulu S, Christein JD, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER, Wilcox CM. Prospective randomized trial comparing EUS and EGD for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:1102-1111.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Grimm H, Binmoeller KF, Soehendra N. Endosonography-guided drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:170-171.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Binmoeller KF, Seifert H, Walter A, Soehendra N. Transpapillary and transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:219-224.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Giovannini M, Pesenti C, Rolland AL, Moutardier V, Delpero JR. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts or pancreatic abscesses using a therapeutic echo endoscope. Endoscopy 2001;33:473-477.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Bassi C, Falconi M, Molinari E, Salvia R, Butturini G, Sartori N, et al. Reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreatectomy: results of a comparative study. Ann Surg 2005;242:767-771; discussion 771-773.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Fernandez-Cruz L, Cosa R, Blanco L, Lopez-Boado MA, Astudillo E. Pancreatogastrostomy with gastric partition after pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy versus conventional pancreatojejunostomy: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg 2008;248:930-938.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Weerts J, Feryn T, Roeyen G, et al. Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:655-662.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Baron TH, Harewood GC, Morgan DE, Yates MR. Outcome differences after endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis, acute pancreatic pseudocysts, and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:7-17.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Cahen D, Rauws E, Fockens P, Weverling G, Huibregtse K, Bruno M. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: long-term outcome and procedural factors associated with safe and successful treatment. Endoscopy 2005;37:977-983.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Hookey LC, Debroux S, Delhaye M, Arvanitakis M, Le Moine O, Devière J. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:635-643.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Kwon YM, Gerdes H, Schattner MA, Brown KT, Covey AM, Getrajdman GI, et al. Management of peripancreatic fluid collections following partial pancreatectomy: a comparison of percutaneous versus EUS-guided drainage. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2422-2427.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Song KB, Kwon J, Lee YJ, Hwang DW, Lee JH, Shin SH, et al. The treatment indication and optimal management of fluid collection after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc 2019;33:3314-3324.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Varadarajulu S, Trevino JM, Christein JD. EUS for the management of peripancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1260-1265.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM, Christein JD. EUS-guided therapy for management of peripancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy in 20 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:418-423.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Azeem N, Baron TH, Topazian MD, Zhong N, Fleming CJ, Kendrick ML. Outcomes of endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of pancreatic fluid collections arising after pancreatic tail resection. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:177-185.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Gupta T, Lemmers A, Tan D, Ibrahim M, Le Moine O, Deviere J. EUS-guided transmural drainage of postoperative collections. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:1259-1265.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Tilara A, Gerdes H, Allen P, Jarnagin W, Kingham P, Fong Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of postoperative pancreatic collections. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:33-40.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Al Efishat M, Attiyeh MA, Eaton AA, Gonen M, Covey AM, D'Angelica MI, et al. Endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage of post-operative peripancreatic fluid collections following pancreatic resection. HPB (Oxford) 2019;21:434-443.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef