Cargando…

Safety and clinical efficacy of EUS–guided pelvic abscess drainage

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EUS is a potential alternative for the drainage of abscesses. The aim of this study was to determine if EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and a valid option for abscess resolution. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review from 2002 to 20...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al Khaldi, Maher, Ponomarev, Alexander, Richard, Carole, Dagbert, François, Sebajang, Herawaty, Schwenter, Frank, Wassef, Ramses, De Broux, Éric, Ratelle, Richard, Paquin, Sarto C., Sahai, Anand V., Loungnarath, Rasmy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10437202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37693116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/eus.0000000000000020
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EUS is a potential alternative for the drainage of abscesses. The aim of this study was to determine if EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and a valid option for abscess resolution. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review from 2002 to 2020 at a single quaternary institution. EUS–guided pelvic abscess drainage via the transrectal route was performed in all patients with or without drain/stent placement. Technical and clinical success of EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage was analyzed. Descriptive analyses and Fisher exact test were performed. RESULTS: Sixty consecutive patients were included in the study (53.5% male; mean age, 53.8 ± 17.9 years). Pelvic abscesses occurred mainly postoperatively (33 cases; 60.0%) and from complicated diverticulitis (14 cases; 23.3%). Mean diameter was 6.5 ± 2.4 cm (80% unilocular). Drainage was performed with EUS-guided stent placement (double-pigtail plastic or lumen-apposing metal) in 74.5% of cases and with aspiration alone for the remainder. Technical success occurred in 58 cases (97%). Of those with long-term follow-up after EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (n = 55; 91.7%), complete abscess resolution occurred in 72.7% of all cases. Recurrence occurred in 8 cases (14.5%) and persisted in 7 patients (12.5%), 7 of which were successfully retreated with EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage. Accounting for these successful reinterventions, the overall rate of abscess resolution was 85.5%. Abscess resolution rate improved with drain placement (83%). Accounting for 7 repeat EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainages, overall abscess resolution improved. Two deaths occurred (3.4%) because of sepsis from failed source control in patients who had previously failed medical, radiological, and surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: EUS–guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and an effective alternative to radiological or open surgical drainage. It also offers favorable clinical outcomes in different clinical situations.