miyoshi hironao

OBJECTIVES: We set out to predict whether nonsurgical treatment is likely to succeed in removing pancreatic stones in a given patient and also to determine an optimal maximal number of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) sessions for treatment of pancreatolithiasis in that patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We ascertained the number of ESWL sessions for each of 164 patients undergoing that treatment for pancreatolithiasis between 1992 and 2020. Median follow-up duration was 31 months (range, 0-239), median age was 58 years (22-83), and the male to female ratio was 5.1:1.0. Patients were divided into 2 groups based upon an optimal maximal number of ESWL sessions determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Total stone clearance was achieved in 130 of 164 patients (79%). The median number of ESWL sessions was 3 (1-61). Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined 7 to be the optimal maximal number of sessions. Complete clearance was more frequent (87%) among the 131 patients requiring 7 or fewer ESWL sessions than among the 33 undergoing more (48%, P < 0.001). Seventeen patients (52%) undergoing 8 or more sessions still had residual stones. CONCLUSIONS: If any pancreatic stones persist after 7 ESWL sessions, we recommend transition to medical or surgical treatments.

A 69-year-old woman suspected to have IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis causing bile duct stenosis was transferred from another hospital after diarrhea, eosinophilia, and eosinophilic infiltration were detected and prednisolone was prescribed. Additional biliary imaging suggested primary sclerosing cholangitis, but the IgG4 level and inferior bile duct stenosis were alleviated by steroid therapy, suggesting IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis. Therefore, prednisolone was continued. Bile duct biopsy findings suggesting adenocarcinoma led to a diagnosis of pancreatoduodenectomy. The latter specimen only displayed evidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis, and prednisolone was discontinued. Intractable cholangitis necessitated left hepatectomy, after which serum alkaline phosphatase levels increased and eosinophilic colitis recurred. The reintroduction of prednisolone effectively managed the diarrhea but only temporarily reversed the alkaline phosphatase elevation. When histologic sections from resection specimens were compared, the hepatectomy specimen exhibited greater eosinophil infiltration than the earlier pancreatoduodenectomy specimen, suggesting eosinophilic cholangiopathy superimposed on primary sclerosing cholangitis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine when a coexisting pseudocyst was likely to complicate the nonsurgical treatment of pancreatolithiasis. METHODS: We treated 165 patients with pancreatolithiasis nonsurgically between 1992 and 2020, including 21 with pseudocysts. Twelve patients had a single pseudocyst less than 60 mm in diameter. Pseudocysts in the other nine patients had diameters of at least 60 mm or were multiple. The locations of pseudocysts along the length of the pancreas varied from the area with stone involvement to the pancreatic tail. We compared the outcomes in these groups. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in pain relief, stone clearance, stone recurrence, or the likelihood of adverse events between pseudocyst groups or between patients with vs without pseudocysts. However, 4 of 9 patients with large or multiple pseudocysts required transition to surgical treatment (44%) compared with 13 of 144 patients with pancreatolithiasis and no pseudocyst (9.0%) (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with smaller pseudocysts typically underwent nonsurgical stone clearance successfully with few adverse events, similar to findings in patients with pancreatolithiasis and no pseudocysts. Pancreatolithiasis complicated by large or multiple pseudocysts did not cause more adverse events but was more likely to require transition to surgery compared with pancreatolithiasis without pseudocysts. In patients with large or multiple pseudocysts, early transition to surgery should be considered when nonsurgical treatment is ineffective.

BACKGROUND: Many guidelines for nonsurgical treatment of pancreatolithiasis suggest little guidance for patients with pancreatolithiasis who do not have abdominal pain. Some patients with pancreatolithiasis whom we have treated nonsurgically with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy did not have abdominal pain, and we describe one of them here. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 42-year-old man complaining of an 8-kg weight loss over 6 months was admitted to a nearby hospital, where fasting blood sugar and hemoglobin A1c values were 500 mg/dL and 11.8%. Computed tomography showed stones in the head of the pancreas and dilation of the main pancreatic duct. He was referred to our hospital to be considered for nonsurgical treatment of pancreatolithiasis. His height and weight were 160 cm and 52 kg (body mass index, 20.31). No tenderness or other abdominal findings were evident. After obtaining informed consent for nonsurgical treatment despite absence of abdominal pain, we performed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Computed tomography showed disappearance of stones from the pancreatic head. At discharge, his weight had increased to 62 kg and hemoglobin A1c was 6.8%, though antidiabetic medication has since become necessary. CONCLUSION: We believe that nonsurgical treatment of pancreatolithiasis was helpful for this patient, and could improve exocrine and endocrine function in other patients without abdominal pain.