AJR ARRS: Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Singh, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Singh, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, P. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.04.1948
AJR 2006; 187:1591-1596
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Imaging-Guided Catheter Drainage of Abdominal Collections with Fistulous Pancreaticobiliary Communication

Ajay K. Singh1,2, Debra A. Gervais2, Lea M. Alhilali2, Peter F. Hahn2 and Peter R. Mueller2

1 Division of Abdominal Imaging, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655.
2 Division of Abdominal Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114.

OBJECTIVE. Our aim was to study the success of percutaneous imaging-guided catheter drainage of abdominal collections with documented fistulous pancreaticobiliary communication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-seven patients (age range, 23-88 years) with abdominal collections who underwent imaging-guided catheter drainage were included in this retrospective study. These collections showed communication with either the pancreatic duct (n = 15) or the biliary duct (n = 42) on imaging. The imaging guidance included CT (n = 40), sonography (n = 17), and fluoroscopy (n = 4), either alone or in combination. The success of catheter drainage was described as resolution of the collection on follow-up imaging and clinical improvement. Other treatments directed toward management of leaks or collections were also recorded.

RESULTS. The success rates of catheter drainage for abdominal collections with biliary and pancreatic ductal communication were 93% (39/42) and 67% (10/15), respectively. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.01). The three complications seen in this study were pneumothorax in one patient, bowel perforation in one, and death in one. The drainage catheter was upsized in five patients and an additional catheter was needed in nine patients.

CONCLUSION. Imaging-guided catheter drainage is a clinically useful option for drainage of abdominal collections that have pancreaticobiliary communications. The success rate is significantly better for collections with biliary communication than for those with pancreatic communication.

Keywords: biliary system • catheters • drainage • gallbladder • interventional radiology


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.