{"title":"EUS-guided transrectal drainage of pelvic abscesses: a retrospective analysis of 17 patients.","authors":"H Peeters, M Simoens, J Lenz","doi":"10.51821/86.3.12029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pelvic abscess is a common complication of abdominal surgery or intestinal or gynecological diseases. Over the last decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to percutaneous or surgical treatment of pelvic abscesses.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate safety and efficacy of EUS-guided transrectal pelvic abscess drainage in a single center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From February 2017 to April 2023, all data on patients who were treated for pelvic abscesses by EUS-guided drainage in a single center, were retrospectively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 17 patients were treated for pelvic abscesses by EUS-guided drainage. The procedure was technically successful and uneventful in all 17 patients (100%). Etiology of the abscess was postsurgical (n=5, 29%), secondary to medical illness (n=10, 59%) or gastrointestinal perforation (n=2, 12%). The abscess was multilocular in 5 patients (29%), the mean largest diameter was 76 mm (range 40-146 mm). Drainage was performed using 2 double pigtail stents, and in 1 patient an additional 10 Fr drainage catheter was deployed. Two patients (12%) required a second endoscopic intervention. Treatment success, defined by complete abscess resolution on follow-up CT scan along with symptom relief, was 100%. There was no need for surgical intervention. The median post-procedural hospital stay was 5 days. No recurrence was reported within a median time of follow-up of 39 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EUS-guided transrectal drainage of pelvic abscesses using double pigtail stents is safe and highly effective. This case series contributes to the cumulative evidence that, in expert hands, EUS-guided drainage should be considered as first-line approach for treatment of pelvic abscesses.</p>","PeriodicalId":7322,"journal":{"name":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","volume":"86 3","pages":"395-400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51821/86.3.12029","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Pelvic abscess is a common complication of abdominal surgery or intestinal or gynecological diseases. Over the last decades, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to percutaneous or surgical treatment of pelvic abscesses.
Aim: To evaluate safety and efficacy of EUS-guided transrectal pelvic abscess drainage in a single center.
Methods: From February 2017 to April 2023, all data on patients who were treated for pelvic abscesses by EUS-guided drainage in a single center, were retrospectively analyzed.
Results: A total of 17 patients were treated for pelvic abscesses by EUS-guided drainage. The procedure was technically successful and uneventful in all 17 patients (100%). Etiology of the abscess was postsurgical (n=5, 29%), secondary to medical illness (n=10, 59%) or gastrointestinal perforation (n=2, 12%). The abscess was multilocular in 5 patients (29%), the mean largest diameter was 76 mm (range 40-146 mm). Drainage was performed using 2 double pigtail stents, and in 1 patient an additional 10 Fr drainage catheter was deployed. Two patients (12%) required a second endoscopic intervention. Treatment success, defined by complete abscess resolution on follow-up CT scan along with symptom relief, was 100%. There was no need for surgical intervention. The median post-procedural hospital stay was 5 days. No recurrence was reported within a median time of follow-up of 39 months.
Conclusion: EUS-guided transrectal drainage of pelvic abscesses using double pigtail stents is safe and highly effective. This case series contributes to the cumulative evidence that, in expert hands, EUS-guided drainage should be considered as first-line approach for treatment of pelvic abscesses.
期刊介绍:
The Journal Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica principally publishes peer-reviewed original manuscripts, reviews, letters to editors, book reviews and guidelines in the field of clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, including digestive oncology, digestive pathology, as well as nutrition. Pure animal or in vitro work will not be considered for publication in the Journal. Translational research papers (including sections of animal or in vitro work) are considered by the Journal if they have a clear relationship to or relevance for clinical hepato-gastroenterology (screening, disease mechanisms and/or new therapies). Case reports and clinical images will be accepted if they represent an important contribution to the description, the pathogenesis or the treatment of a specific gastroenterology or liver problem. The language of the Journal is English. Papers from any country will be considered for publication. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal should not have been published previously (in English or any other language), nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Unsolicited papers are peer-reviewed before it is decided whether they should be accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Manuscripts that do not meet the presentation criteria (as indicated below) will be returned to the authors. Papers that go too far beyond the scope of the journal will be also returned to the authors by the editorial board generally within 2 weeks. The Journal reserves the right to edit the language of papers accepted for publication for clarity and correctness, and to make formal changes to ensure compliance with AGEB’s style. Authors have the opportunity to review such changes in the proofs.