Advertisement

Acta Endoscopica

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 477–484 | Cite as

Indications actuelles de la pancréatographie et de la pancréatoscopie

  • M. Jung
  • M. Hahn
Article

Résumé

L'importance de la pancréatographie endoscopique rétrograde (PCER) diminue actuellement en raison de la disponibilité de techniques d'efficacité équivalente et dépourvues de complications. L'angiopancréatographie (PCRM) et l'échoendoscopie sont au moins équivalentes dans le diagnostic des maladies pancréatiques et mettent en évidence les altérations canalaires avec une précision comparable. De plus, ces techniques renseignent au sujet des altérations parenchymateuses. Dans la mesure où l'intervention endoscopique n'est pas nécessaire, la PCRM et l'utrasonographie peuvent remplacer les techniques classiques de diagnostic par PCER. La PCER a sa place comme exploration préalable à une intervention endoscopique lorsque la PCRM ne définit pas avec des détails suffisants l'anatomie canalaire ou lorsque l'échoendoscopie n'explique pas les anomalies canalaires observées. La pancréatoscopie est réalisée chez des patients sélectionnés porteurs d'anomalies canalaires mal définies associées à une dilatation des canaux. La principale indication est le diagnostic des néoplasmes pancréatiques mucino-papillaires intra canalaires et leur distinction avec la pancréatite chronique. A l'avenir des instruments de plus fin calibre pourvus d'un meilleur béquillage devraient permettre d'élargir le spectre diagnostique de la mini-endoscopie.

Mots-clés

cholangiopancréatoscopie (CP) cholangiopancréatoscopie endoscopique rétrograde (CPER) pancréatoscopie tumeurs pancréatiques 

Current indications for pancreatography and pancreatoscopy

Summary

The importance of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is currently decreasing since equally effective but less complicated tests are available. MR-Cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound are at least equivalent for the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases and show ductal changes with similar accuracy. In addition, parenchymal changes can be seen. As long as there is no need for endoscopic intervention, MRCP and EUS can replace or precede a diagnostic ERCP. The ERCP has its place as a test before endoscopic intervention, when MRCP does not define ductal anatomy in sufficient detail, or when EUS does not explain the ductal changes seen. Pancreatoscopy is used in selected patients with unclear intraductal pathology and concurrent ductal dilation. Its main indication is the diagnosis of intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasias of the pancreas and differentiating these from chronic pancreatitis. Smaller instrument diameter and better tip deflection may be able to increase the diagnostic spectrum of miniature endoscopy in the future.

Key-words

ERCP MRCP pancreatic tumors pancreatoscopy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    McCUNE W.S., SHORB P.E., MOSCOWITZ H. — Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of Vater.Ann. Surg., 1968, 752–754.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CLASSEN M., DEMLING L. — Endoskopische Sphinkterotomie der Papilla Vater und Steinextraktion aus dem Ductus choledochus.DMW, 1974,99, 496–497.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    KOZAREK R.A. — Direct pancreatoscopy.Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N. Am., 1995,51, 259–267.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    BARISH M.A., YUCEL E.K., FERRUCCI J.T. — Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.N. Engl. J. Med., 1999,341, 258–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    REGENT D., DEBELLE L., LAURENT V.et al. — IRM du pancréas. Aspects actuels et perspectives d'avenir.Acta Endoscopica, 1999,29, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    LOPERFIDO S., ANGELINI G., BENEDETTI G.et al. — Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.Gastrointest. Endosc., 1998,48, 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MALDONADO M.E., BRADY P.G., MAMEL J.J., ROBINSON B. — Incidence of pancreatitis in patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM).Am. J. Gastroenterol., 1999,94, 387–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ADAMEK H.E., ALBERT J., WEITZ M.et al. — A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction.Gut, 1998,43, 680–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DWERRYHOUSE S.J., BROWN E., VIPOND M.N. — Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography to detect common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Br. J. Surg., 1998,85, 1364–1366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MATERNE R., VAN BEERS B.E., GIGAT J.F.et al. — Extrahepatic biliary obstruction: Magnetic resonance imaging compared with endoscopic ultrasonography.Endoscopy, 2000,32(1), 3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SCHWARTZ L.H., COAKLEY F.V., SUN Y.et al. — Neoplastic pancreaticobiliary duct obstruction: evaluation with breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography.Am. J. Roentgenol., 1998,170, 1491–1495.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MATOS R., METENS T., DEVIERE J.et al. — Pancreatic duct: morphologic and functional evaluation with dynamic MR pancreatography after secretion stimulation.Radiology 1997, 203: 435–441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    RAMIREZ F.C., McINTOSH A.S., DENNERT B.et al. — Emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in critically ill patients.Gastrointest. Endosc., 1998,47, 368–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ADAMEK H.E., BREER H., KARSCHKES T.et al. — Magnetic resonance imaging in gastroenterology: Time to say good-bye to all that endoscopy?Endoscopy, 2000,32(5), 406–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    KOITO K., NAMIENO T., ICHIMURA T.et al. — Mucinproducing pancreatic tumors: comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Radiology, 1998, 208: 231–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MATOS C., NICAISE N., DEVIÈRE J.et al. — Choledochal cysts: comparison of findings at MR cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in eight patients.Radiology, 1998,209, 443–448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    SICA G.T., BRAVER J., COONEY M.J.et al. — Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with pancreatitis.Radiology, 1999,210, 605–610.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    PONCHON T. — Diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Endoscopy, 2000,32(3), 200–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    BUSCAIL L., ESCOURROU J. — Rôle de l'échoendoscopie dans le diagnostic de la pancréatique chronique.Acta Endoscopica, 2000,30, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    PALAZZO L., HAMMEL P., CELLIER C., RUSZNIEWSKI P. — Les tumeurs kystiques du pancréas.Acta Endoscopica, 1999,29 (3, suppl. 2) 418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    INUI K., NAKAZAWA S., YOSHINO J.et al. — Endoscopy and intraductal ultrasonography.Semin. Surg. Oncol., 1998,15 (1), 33–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    FOERSTER E.C., STÖRMER P., SCHNEIDER M.U.et al._ — Transpapillary miniscopy and mini-biopsy of the pancreatic duct.Endoscopy, 1990,22, 78–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    JUNG M., ZIPF A., SCHOONBROODT D.et al. — Is pancreatoscopy of any benefit in clarifying the diagnosis of pancreatic duct lesions?Endoscopy, 1998,30(3), 273–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    KANEKO T., NAKAO A., NOMOTO S.et al. — Intraoperative pancreatoscopy with the ultrathin pancreatoscope for mucin producing tumors of the pancreas.Arch. Surg., 1998,133(3), 263–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    KODAMA T., SATO H., HORII Y.et al. — Pancreatoscopy for the next generation: development of the peroral electronic system.Gastrointest. Endosc., 1999, 49(3), 366–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    BECKER V. — Der Wirsungische Gang und die klinische Morphologie der Bauschpeicheldrüse.Internist, 1989, 30, 759–763.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    ÖZKAN H., SAISHO H., YAMAGUCHI T.et al. — Clinical usefulness of a new miniscope in the diagnosis of disease.Gastrointest Endosc., 1995,42, 480–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    SCHOONBROODT D., ZIPF A., HERRMANN G.et al. — Pancreatoscopy and diagnosis of mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas.Gastrointest Endosc., 1996, 44, 479–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    TAJIRI H., KOBAYASHI M., NIWA H., FURUI S. — Clinical application of an ultrathin pancreatoscope using a sequential video converter.Gastrointest. Endosc., 1993,39, 371–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    LOFTHUS E.V., OLIVARES-PARZAD B.A., BATTS K.P.et al. — Intraductal papillary-mucinous tumors of the pancreas: clinicopathological features, outcome, and nomenclature.Gastroenterol., 1996,110, 1909–1918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    NEUHAUS H., HOFFMANN W., CLASSEN M. — Laser lithotripsy of pancreatic and biliary stones via 3,4 mm and 3,7 mm miniscopes: first clinical results.Endoscopy, 1992,24, 208–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jung
    • 1
  • M. Hahn
    • 1
  1. 1.St Hildegardis KrankenhausJohannes Gutenberg-UniversitätMainz(Allemagne)

Personalised recommendations