Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging of endoscopic cystogastrostomy in pancreatic walled-off necrosis: what the radiologist needs to know

  • Pictorial essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Acute pancreatitis is a frequent entity encountered by radiologists. In 2012, the Atlanta criteria were revised to help radiologists use a common nomenclature when describing acute pancreatitis and its complications. One delayed complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in walled-off necrosis, a collection seen at least 4 weeks after an episode of acute pancreatic necrosis and/or acute peripancreatic necrosis. Multiple treatments have been adapted in the setting of walled-off necrosis, including endoscopic cystogastrostomy. The focus of this article is to familiarize the radiologist with the imaging appearance of this procedure as well as, review the outcomes and potential complications of endoscopic cystogastrostomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yadav D, Lowenfels AB (2013) The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 144(6):1252–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lankisch PG, Apte M, Banks PA (2015) Acute pancreatitis. Lancet 2015(386):85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, et al. (2013) Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62:102–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Thoeni RF (2012) The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis: its importance for the radiologist and its effect on treatment. Radiology 262(3):751–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stamatakos M, Stefanaki C, Kontzoglou K, et al. (2010) Walled-off pancreatic necrosis. World J Gastroenterol 16(14):1707–1712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin H, Zhan X-B, Sun S-Y, et al. (2014) Stent selection for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a multicenter study in China. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014:193562

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruiz-Clavijo D, de la Higuera BG, Vila JJ (2015) Advances in the endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. World J Gastrointest Endosc 7(4):381–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Puli SR, Graumlich JF, Pamulaparthy SR, Kalva N (2014) Endoscopic transmural necrosectomy for walled-off pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28(1):50–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawakami H, Itoi T, Sakamoto N (2014) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage for peripancreatic fluid collections: where are we now? Gut Liver 8(4):341–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Loren DE, et al. (2017) Fully covered self-expanding metal stents versus lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent versus plastic stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: clinical outcomes and success. Gastrointest Endosc 85(4):758–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Siddiqui AA, Adler DG, Nieto J, et al. (2016) EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and necrosis by using a novel lumen-apposing stent: a large retrospective, multicenter U.S. experience. Gastrointest Endosc 83(4):699–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tzovaras G, Parks RW, Diamond T, Rowlands BJ (2004) Early and long-term results of surgery for severe necrotising pancreatitis. Dig Surg 21(1):41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tyberg A, Karia K, Gabr M, et al. (2016) Management of pancreatic fluid collections: a comprehensive review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol 22(7):2256–2270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nabi Z, Basha J, Reddy DN (2017) Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections revisited. World J Gastroenterol 23(15):2660–2672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hookey LC, Debroux S, Delhaye M, et al. (2006) Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 63(4):635–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ahmed A, Bailey A, Agrawal D (2014) Unusual complication of endoscopic cystogastrostomy. Gastroenterology 146(5):e12–e13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hao S-J, Wei-Jia X, Di Y, et al. (2017) Novel and supplementary management of pancreatic fluid collections: endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. World J Gastrointest Endosc 9(9):486–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Muniraj T, Jamidar P, Nealon W, Alanian H (2016) Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections. J Clin Gastoenterol 51(1):19–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas Tech University Medical Center El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

    Anthony Abou Karam, Jesus Calleros & Shaked Laks

  2. University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, UTMB, Galveston, TX, USA

    Arya Bagherpour

Authors
  1. Anthony Abou Karam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arya Bagherpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesus Calleros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shaked Laks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Abou Karam.

Ethics declarations

Funding

None.

Conflict of interest

Anthony Abou Karam, Arya Bagherpour, Jesus Calleros and Shaked Laks declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required (study is retrospective and no PHI were included).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abou Karam, A., Bagherpour, A., Calleros, J. et al. Imaging of endoscopic cystogastrostomy in pancreatic walled-off necrosis: what the radiologist needs to know. Abdom Radiol 43, 3043–3053 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1584-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1584-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation