Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (Jan 2020)

Endoscopic cystogastrostomy versus surgical cystogastrostomy in the management of acute pancreatic pseudocysts

  • Sundeep Singh Saluja,
  • Siddharth Srivastava,
  • S Hari Govind,
  • Amol Dahale,
  • Barjesh Chander Sharma,
  • Pramod Kumar Mishra

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_109_18
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 2
pp. 126 – 131

Abstract

Read online

Background: Studies comparing surgical versus endoscopic drainage of pseudocyst customarily include patients with both acute and chronic pseudocysts and the endoscopic modalities used for drainage are protean. We compared the outcomes following endoscopic cystogastrostomy (ECG) and surgical cystogastrostomy (SCG) in patients with acute pseudocyst. Methods: Seventy-three patients with acute pseudocyst requiring drainage from 2011 to 2014 were analysed (18 patients excluded: transpapillary drainage n = 15; cystojejunostomy n = 3). The remaining 55 patients were divided into two groups, ECG n = 35 and SCG n = 20, and their outcomes (technical success, successful drainage, complication rate and hospital stay) were compared. Results: The technical success (31/35 [89%] vs. 20/20 [100%] P = 0.28), complication rate (10/35 [28.6%] vs. 2/20 [10%]; P = 0.17) and median hospital stay (6.5 days [range 2–12] vs. 5 days [range 3–12]; P = 0.22) were comparable in both the groups, except successful drainage which was higher in surgical group (27/35 [78%] vs. 20/20 [100%] P = 0.04). The conversion rate to surgical procedure was 17%. The location of cyst towards tail of pancreas and presence of necrosis were the main causes of technical failure and failure of successful endoscopic drainage, respectively. Conclusion: Surgical drainage albeit remains the gold standard for management of pseudocyst drainage; endoscopic drainage should be considered a first-line treatment in patients with acute pseudocyst considering the reasonably good success rate.

Keywords