Correlation of Morphological Lesions, Functional Changes, and Clinical Stages in Chronic Pancreatitis
Great progress has been achieved in the detection of chronic pancreatitis over the past 10 years [5, 6]. Methods which fulfill the criteria of high sensitivity and specificity have found general acceptance in gastroenterological units. Among these endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) and somewhat less computed tomography (CT) for imaging as well as the secretin ceruletide test (SC) for functional testing are indicated as standard reference methods for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. The question raised here is whether in addition to their ability to detect chronic pancreatitis these methods might be suitable to classify the clinical severity of chronic pancreatitis, with possible prognostic and therapeutic implications. For this purpose we performed a prospective investigation by the combined application of ERP, CT, and SC to patients with chronic pancreatitis either newly recognized or in their clinical follow-up.
KeywordsChronic Pancreatitis Exocrine Function Exocrine Insufficiency Morphological Lesion Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bornman PC, Marks IN, Girdwood AH (1984) Mechanism of pain in chronic alcohol-induced pancreatitis (CAIP). In: Gyr K, Singer MV, Sarles H (eds) Pancreatitis, concepts and classification. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 193–195Google Scholar
- 5.Cotton PB, Sahel J (1984) Imaging session: summary. In: Gyr K, Singer MV, Sarles H (eds) Pancreatitis, concepts and classification. Excerpta Medica, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gyr K, Toskes P (1984) Pancreatic function testing. In: Gyr K, Singer MY, Sarles H (eds) 2nd International Symposium on classification of Pancreatitis. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 8.Reimer Jensen A, Matzen P, Malchow-Moller A, Christoffersen I and The Copenhagen Pancreatitis Study Group (1984) Pattern of pain, duct morphology, and pancreatic function in chronic pancreatitis. A comparative study. Scand J Gastroenterol 19: 334–338Google Scholar