Inadvertent pancreatic duct perforation during brushing
Department of Surgery and Oncology, Kyushu University, Hukuoka, Fukuoka, JapanGastrointestinal Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 4.9). 09/2003; 58(2):305-6. DOI: 10.1067/mge.2003.350
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The accuracy and complication rates of brush cytology obtained from pancreaticobiliary strictures have not been fully defined. In this study we compared the accuracy and complications of brush cytology obtained from bile versus pancreatic ducts. We identified 148 consecutive patients for whom brush cytology was done during an ERCP from a database with prospectively collected data. We compared cytology results with the final diagnosis as determined by surgical pathologic examination or long-term clinical follow-up. We followed all patients and recorded ERCP-related complications. Forty-two pancreatic brush cytology samples and 101 biliary brush cytology samples were obtained. The accuracy rate of biliary cytology was 65 of 101 (64.3%) and the accuracy rate of pancreatic cytology was 30 of 42 (71.4%). Overall sensitivity was 50% for biliary cytology and 58.3% for pancreatic cytology. Of 67 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, sensitivity for biliary cytology was 50% versus 66% for pancreatic cytology. Concurrent pancreatic and biliary cytology during the same procedure increased the sensitivity in only 1 of 10 (10%) patients. Pancreatitis occurred in 11 (11%) patients (9 mild cases, 2 moderate cases) after biliary cytology and in 9 (21%) patients (6 mild cases, 3 moderate cases) after pancreatic cytology (p = 0.22). In 10 patients who had pancreatic brush cytology, a pancreatic stent was placed. None of these patients developed pancreatitis versus 9 of 32 (28%) patients in whom a stent was not placed (p = 0.08). Pancreatic cytology samples obtained from the head of the pancreas were correct in 13 of 18 (72%) cases, from the genu in 7 of 7 (100%) cases, from the body in 5 of 9 (55%) cases, and from the tail in 4 of 7 (57%) cases. The accuracy of biliary brush cytology is similar to the accuracy of pancreatic brush cytology. The yield of the latter for pancreatic adenocarcinoma is similar to that of the former. Complication rates for pancreatic cytology are not significantly higher than the rates for biliary cytology. The placement of a pancreatic stent after pancreatic brushing appears to reduce the risk of postprocedure pancreatitis.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 04/1999; 49(3 Pt 1):322-7. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70008-8 · 4.90 Impact Factor
- The Journal of trauma 08/1996; 41(1):143-4. DOI:10.1097/00005373-199607000-00024 · 2.96 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite recent advances in cytology brush design, yield of endoscopic brush cytology in suspected pancreatic carcinoma remains low. We prospectively evaluated 32 such patients by ERCP to analyze differences in yield based on anatomic location of the pancreatic stricture, and the role of concurrent biliary stricture brush cytology, in improving the overall yield. Endoscopic brush cytology was performed on all strictures following ERCP. A final diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma was confirmed in all patients. Twenty-three of the 32 patients had positive cytology for pancreatic malignancy (71.9%). Eight patients had positive brushings from biliary strictures alone (25%) and 15 had positive brushings obtained from pancreatic strictures (46.9%). The yield varied widely depending on the anatomic location of the stricture; ampullary, genu, and tail regions had low rates of positive cytology, in part due to technical factors and brush design (1 of 8, 2 of 6, and 1 of 4, respectively). Strictures of the head and body yielded high rates of positive cytology (7 of 8 and 4 of 6, respectively). The yield of endopancreatic brush cytology is related to the location of malignancy, with overall yield enhanced by concurrent brushing of bile duct strictures.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/1996; 44(3):300-4. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5107(96)70168-2 · 4.90 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.