A prospective study on surgical versus endoscopic cystoenterostomy


  • Krishnam Raju V. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Supreeth Kumar Reddy Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Mayankkumar Gurjar Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Rakesh R. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Gurudutt P. Varty Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Thirunavukkarasu S. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India




Cystogastrostomy, Endoscopic etrograde cholangiopancreatography, Pancreatic pseudocyst, Laparoscopic cystogastrostomy


Background: The aim of the present study was to compare endoscopic and surgical modalities in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts. Comparisons were based on clinical success, complication rate, recurrence and hospital stay.

Methods: This is a prospective comparative study, enrolling 24 patients, 13 in surgical group and 11 in endoscopic group. The duration of study was from December 2013 to September 2015. The minimum follow up was for atlas 6 months.

Results: 13 (54%) of cases were managed surgically, 11 (46%) of cases were treated endoscopically. The clinical success of the endoscopic group was 72.7% versus 100% for the surgical group (p=0.216), with a complication rate of 36.4% and 15.3%, respectively (p= 0.659). The hospital stay was lower for the endoscopic group was 9.82 days compared with 12.08 days in the surgical group. The two recurrences found in the endoscopic group were associated with main pancreatic duct stricture and disconnected pancreatic duct. The duration to oral intake post procedure was lower in endoscopic group 4.36 days (p<0.001). 18.2% of patients in endoscopic group required conversion to open surgery.

Conclusions: Non EUS guided cystoenterostomy has to be phased out. 1/3rd of patients undergoing endoscopic cystoenterostomy require more than 6 months of stent placement. In patients with disruption of the main pancreatic duct, endoscopic intervention is more successful when combined with transpapillary ductal stent placement.


Naoum E, Zavos A, Goudis K, Sarros C, Pitsargiotis E, Karamouti M, et al. Pancreatic pseudocysts: 10 years of experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2003;10:373-6.

Morgagni JB. The seats and causes of disease investigated by anatomy. London: Miller and Cadell; 1976: 579.

Le Dentu. Rapport sur l’observation precedent. Bulletins de la Societe Anatomique de Paris. 1865;10:197-213.

Bowsman N. Removal of a cyst of the pancreas weighing twenty and one- half pound. Med Rec. 1882;21:46-7.

Ammori BJ, Bhattacharya D, Senapati PS. Laparoscopic endogastric pseudocyst gastrostomy: a report of three cases. Surg Laparoscop Endoscop Percutaneous Techniques. 2002;12(6):437-40.

Nema A. Laparoscopic drainage procedures for pancreatic pseudocyst: a review article. World J Laparoscopic Surg. 2009;2(2):37-41.

Winship D. Pancreatic pseudocysts and their complications. Gastroenterol. 1977;73:592-603.

Aljarabah M, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a systematic review of published series. Surg Endoscop. 2007;21(11):1936-44.

Palanivelu C, Senthilkumar K, Madhankumar MV, Rajan PS, Shetty AR, Jani K, et al. Management of pancreatic pseudocyst in the era of laparoscopic surgery-experience from a tertiary centre. Surg Endoscop. 2007;21(12):2262-7.

Yang CC, Shin JS, Liu YT, Yueh SK, Chou DA. Management of pancreatic pseudocysts by endoscopic cystogastrostomy. J Formosan Med Assoc. 1999;98(4):283-6.

Hamza N, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a methodological approach. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(1):148–155.

Gumaste VV, Dave PB. Editorial: pancreatic pseudocyst drainage-the needle or the scalpel?. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1991;13(5):500-5.

Sanfey H, Aguilar M, Jones RS. Pseudocysts of the pancreas, a review of 97 cases. Am Surg. 1994; 60(9):661-8.

Vitas GJ, Sarr MG. Selected management of pancreatic pseudocysts: operative versus expectant management. Surg. 1992;111(2):123-30.

Frey CF. Pancreatic pseudocyst: operative strategy. Ann Surg. 1978;188(5):652.

Grace PA, Williamson RC. Modern management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Br J Surg. 1993;80(5):573-81.

Sankaran S, Walt AJ. The natural and unnatural history of pancreatic pseudocysts. Br J Surg. 1975;62(1):37-44.

Johnson LB, Rattner DW, Warshaw AL. The effect of size of giant pancreatic pseudocysts on the outcome of internal drainage procedures. Surg Gynecol Obstetr. 1991;173(3):171-4.

Trevino JM, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu. Successful stenting in ductal disruption favorably impacts treatment outcomes in patients undergoing transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. SJ Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(3):526-31.

Melman L, Azar R, Beddow K, Brunt LM, Halpin VJ, Eagon JC, et al. Primary and overall success rates for clinical outcomes after laparoscopic, endoscopic, and open pancreatic cystgastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:267-71.

Varadarajulu S, Christein JD, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER, Wilcox CM. Prospective randomized trial comparing EUS and EGD for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (with videos) Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1102-11.

Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER. Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endoscop. 2008;67(6):854-60.

Saul A, Luna MA, Chan C, Uscanga L, Andraca FV, Calleros JH, et al. EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts offers similar success and complications compared to surgical treatment but with a lower cost. Surg Endoscop. 2016;30(4):1459-65.






Original Research Articles