Pitchumoni C S, Agarwal N
Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, USA.
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1999 Sep;28(3):615-39. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8553(05)70077-7.
A better definition of a pseudocyst that clearly separates it from acute fluid collection, improvements in imaging studies, and a better understanding of the natural history of pseudocysts have changed the concepts regarding their management. The old teaching that cysts of more than 6 cm in diameter that have been present for 6 weeks should be drained is no longer true. Indications for drainage are presence of symptoms, enlargement of cyst, complications (infection, hemorrhage, rupture, and obstruction), and suspicion of malignancy. The available forms of therapy include percutaneous drainage, transendoscopic approach, and surgery. The choice of procedure of depends on a number of factors, including the general condition of the patient; size, number, and location of cysts; presence or absence of communication of the cyst with the pancreatic duct; presence or absence of infection; and suspicion of malignancy. Expertise of the radiologist and the endoscopist is also a major deciding factor in the choice of therapy. Percutaneous catheter drainage is safe and effective and should be the treatment of first choice in poor-risk patients, for immature cysts, and for infected pseudocysts. Contraindications include intracystic hemorrhage and presence of pancreatic ascites. For mature cysts, in skilled endoscopic drainage should be given the first preference. It is less invasive, less expensive, and easier to perform with better outcomes in smaller pseudocysts and pancreatic head pseudocysts. Endoscopic expertise is limited, however, and at present endoscopic drainage cannot be advocated as the procedure for general use. In the absence of endoscopic expertise, percutaneous catheter drainage is the procedure of choice. Surgical treatment has been the traditional approach and is still the preferred treatment in most centers. Multiple pseudocysts, giant pseudocysts, presence of other complications related to chronic pancreatitis in addition to pseudocyst, and suspected malignancy are best managed surgically. Surgery is also the backup management in the event that percutaneous or endoscopic drainage fails. Because radiologic diagnosis of pseudocyst may be inaccurate in 20%; it is imperative to be sure that the cystic structure is not a neoplasm before percutaneous or endoscopic drainage. There have been no prospective, randomized trials that have evaluated the results of the three major modalities of therapy (percutaneous, endoscopic, and surgical), and before one can definitely recommend percutaneous drainage or endoscopic approach as the preferred initial mode of therapy, further studies are needed.
对假性囊肿更清晰的定义(能将其与急性液体积聚明确区分开来)、影像学研究的改进以及对假性囊肿自然病程的更好理解,已经改变了关于其治疗的观念。过去认为直径超过6厘米且已存在6周的囊肿应进行引流的观点已不再正确。引流的指征包括出现症状、囊肿增大、并发症(感染、出血、破裂和梗阻)以及怀疑恶变。现有的治疗方式包括经皮引流、经内镜途径和手术。治疗方法的选择取决于多种因素,包括患者的一般状况;囊肿的大小、数量和位置;囊肿与胰管是否相通;是否存在感染;以及是否怀疑恶变。放射科医生和内镜医生的专业技能也是治疗选择的一个主要决定因素。经皮导管引流安全有效,对于高危患者、未成熟囊肿以及感染性假性囊肿应作为首选治疗方法。禁忌证包括囊内出血和胰性腹水。对于成熟囊肿,熟练的内镜引流应优先考虑。它创伤性较小、费用较低,在较小的假性囊肿和胰头假性囊肿中操作更容易且效果更好。然而,内镜专业技能有限,目前内镜引流不能作为普遍适用的方法被提倡。在缺乏内镜专业技能的情况下,经皮导管引流是首选方法。手术治疗一直是传统方法,在大多数中心仍然是首选治疗方式。多个假性囊肿、巨大假性囊肿、除假性囊肿外还存在与慢性胰腺炎相关的其他并发症以及怀疑恶变的情况最好通过手术处理。如果经皮或内镜引流失败,手术也是备用处理方法。由于假性囊肿的放射学诊断可能有20%不准确;在进行经皮或内镜引流之前,必须确定囊性结构不是肿瘤。目前尚无前瞻性、随机试验评估这三种主要治疗方式(经皮、内镜和手术)的效果,在能够明确推荐经皮引流或内镜途径作为首选初始治疗方式之前,还需要进一步研究。