These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pelvic abscess drainage for pelvic abscesses: A case series study.
    Author: Soga K, Sai A, Kitae H.
    Journal: Arab J Gastroenterol; 2023 Aug; 24(3):149-154. PubMed ID: 37689578.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: This is a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) in a single hospital setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The referral criteria for EUS-PAD included patients with a pelvic abscess (PA) that was amenable for the procedure. A total of 14 patients with PA treated with EUS-PAD were included in this study. The mean patient age was 57.4 years, and male-to-female ratio was 7:7. Overall, there were six cases of appendiceal perforation, five of rectal cancer and one case each of the diverticular perforation, perianal abscess, and walled-off necrosis. RESULTS: Overall, 100% of procedures were successful. Clinical success was achieved in 11 patients and they were discharged after EUS-PAD within 21.4 days on an average and the average duration of stent placement before removal was 27.0 days. Of all, six patients achieved complete improvement status where the cause was appendiceal perforation while two and one of the patients were recovered where the causes were post-curative operation for carcinoma and walled-off necrosis, respectively. Eight out of eleven patients who exhibited appendiceal perforation or underwent radical rectal cancer surgery were discharged after an average of 9.4 days post EUS-PAD. Although two patients showed temporary improvement, with perianal abscess and controlled rectal carcinoma, the PA worsened as the primary disease intensified. The PA drainage was ineffective in three patients where two of them had uncontrolled rectal cancer and one had diverticular perforation. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, the EUS-PAD is not only a reliable, safe, and efficient alternative to surgical and percutaneous drainage but also a valuable procedure with a high success rate for patients with acute infections, such as those who have had an appendiceal perforation or curative surgery. Poor indications and contraindications for EUS-PAD include uncontrolled gastrointestinal perforation and direct tumor invasion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]