Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are a frequent complication of pancreatitis. It is important to classify PFCs to guide management. The revised Atlanta criteria classifies PFCs as acute or chronic, with chronic fluid collections subdivided into pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Establishing adequate nutritional support is an essential step in the management of PFCs. Early attempts at oral feeding can be trialed in patients with mild pancreatitis. Enteral feeding should be implemented in patients with moderate to severe pancreatitis. Jejunal feeding remains the preferred route of enteral nutrition. Symptomatic PFCs require drainage; options include surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic approaches. With the advent of newer and more advanced endoscopic tools and expertise, and an associated reduction in health care costs, minimally invasive endoscopic drainage has become the preferable approach. An endoscopic ultrasonography-guided approach using a seldinger technique is the preferred endoscopic approach. Both plastic stents and metal stents are efficacious and safe; however, metal stents may offer an advantage, especially in infected pseudocysts and in WOPN. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is often required in WOPN. Lumen apposing metal stents that allow for direct endoscopic necrosectomy and debridement through the stent lumen are preferred in these patients. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography with pancreatic duct (PD) exploration should be performed concurrent to PFC drainage. PD disruption is associated with an increased severity of pancreatitis, an increased risk of recurrent attacks of pancreatitis and long-term complications, and a decreased rate of PFC resolution after drainage. Any pancreatic ductal disruption should be bridged with endoscopic stenting. However, with improving pathophysiologic under standing and improving diagnostic tools, it became clear that a more detailed organizational system was required. More specifically, one that distinguished between collections containing fluid alone vs those arising from necrosis and/or containing solid components. As such, a new classification system was developed known as the revised Atlanta criteria [4] . Similar to the original Atlanta Criteria, PFCs are classified as acute (< 4 wk after the pancreatitis episode) or chronic (> 4 wk after the pancreatitis episode). However, in the revised criteria, both acute and chronic collections are further subdivided based on the presence of necrosis within the collection. Acute collections are divided into: acute peripancreatic fluid collections (APFC) and acute necrotic collections (ANC); chronic fluid collections are divided into: pseudocysts or walledoff pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). These new classifications are important because the treatment and management varies depending on the type of collection. ENTERAL FEEDINGThe first step in the management of any PFC is ensuring adequate nutritional support. In mild to moderate acute pancreatitis, oral feeding can be initiated when...

Despite similar technical success rates compared to PTBD, EUS-BD results in a lower need for re-intervention, decreased rate of late adverse events, and lower pain scores, and is the sole predictor for clinical success and long-term resolution. EUS-BD should be the treatment of choice after a failed ERCP.

Background and study aims The role of the digital single-operator pancreatoscopy (D-SOP) with electrohydraulic (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) in treating pancreatic ductal stones is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of D-SOP with EHL or LL in patients with obstructing pancreatic duct stones. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis of 109 patients who underwent D-SOP for pancreatic stones at 17 tertiary centers in the United States and Europe from February 2015 to September 2017. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the need for more than one D-SOP with EHL/LL. Results Most patients were males (70.6 %),mean age 54.7 years. Fifty-nine (54.1 %) underwent EHL and 50 (45.9 %) underwent LL. Mean procedure time was longer in the EHL group (74.4 min vs 53.8 min; P < 0.001). Ducts were completely cleared (technical success) in 89.9 % of patients (94.1 % in EHL vs 100 % in LL; P = 0.243), achieved in a single session in 73.5 % of patients (77.1 % by EHL and 70 % by LL; P= 0.5).D-SOP failed in 11 patients (10.1 %); 6 patients were treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), 1 with surgery,1 with combined treatment (ESWL + D-SOP EHL) and 3 with other. Fourteen adverse events occurred in 11 patients (10.1 %). Patients with more than three ductal stones were more likely to have technical failure compared to those with less than three stones (17 % vs. 4.8 %; P = 0.04). Having more than three stones was independently associated with the need for more than one D-SOC EHL/LL session (OR 2.94, 95 % CI 1.13 – 7.65). Conclusion D-SOP with EHL or LL is effective and safe in patients with pancreatic ductal stones.