Home » AGEB Journal » Issues » Volume 87 » Fasc.1 - Original articles

Volume 87 - 2024 - Fasc.1 - Original articles

Comparative outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with minimal necrosis: a retrospective analysis

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cystogastrostomy is the treatment of choice for managing symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). However, studies on the number of stents for optimal drainage of PFCs are limited. Hence, the present study was conducted to compare the outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of PFCs. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of PFCs with minimal necrosis (pseudocyst or walled-off necrosis with <30% solid content) at a tertiary center in South India from October 2020 to October 2022. Post-procedure, patients were followed up for clinical improvement, and stents were removed after documentation of cyst size reduction on imaging. Results: Sixty-three patients (82.5% males, median age: 34 years) fulfilling the selection criteria were included. For single stent placement (n = 47), stents of size 8.5 Fr or 10 Fr were used, while for placement of two stents (n = 16), 7 Fr stents were used. The technical success rate was 100%. Intraprocedural and early postprocedural adverse events (all mild to moderate) were comparable between the groups (17.0% with single stent vs. 25.0% with two stents, p = NS). Clinical success was achieved in 93.6% of patients, with no difference between both groups. Three patients in the single stent group required additional procedures. All patients underwent successful stent removal after a median follow-up of 14 weeks. Conclusion: A single pigtail stent of 8.5 Fr or 10 Fr size for EUSguided cystogastrostomy provides efficacy and safety similar to that of two stents.


Peroral endoscopic myotomy: a two-center retrospective study of practice and adverse events

Background and study aims: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is the preferred technique for the treatment of esophageal motility disorders and is less invasive than surgery. This study was performed to compare two university centers in the practice of POEM, in terms of efficacy and adverse events, for the treatment of esophageal motility disorder. Patients and method: Retrospective comparative study of patients undergoing a POEM between September 2020 and December 2022 from the University Hospital of Liège (Belgium) and Besançon (France). The clinical success was defined by an Eckardt score ≤ 3 after the procedure. Results: Fifty-five patients were included. In both centers, 87,3% of the patients had achalasia (mostly type II), and 12,7% had another esophageal motility disorder. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis was systematic in Liège center but not in Besançon center (100% and 9.1% respectively). The mean value of the post-operative Eckardt score was 1.55± 2.48 in both center with 93.2% of patients with a score ≤ 3 (92% in Besançon and 94.74% in Liège). The rate of adverse event was generally low. There were two minor adverse events more frequent in Liège, clinical capnomediastinum and pain at day one, but they were managed with conservative treatment. Only 7.3% of the total patients had an infectious phenomenon that did not correlate with the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Conclusion: The post-operative Eckardt score and the adverse event rate were comparable between the university centers. This study confirmed that POEM is a safe and effective technique. It also showed that using an antibiotic prophylaxis does not influence the development of infectious adverse events.