{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03320500481231954, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02358036573628489, 'mean_word_length': 5.456521739130435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Peripancreatic Fluid Collections After Pancreas Transplant: Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Drainage.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections after pancreas transplant and to determine factors predicting a successful clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This single-center retrospective study included 28 patients who underwent percutaneous drainage for peripancreatic collections after transplant between January 2008 and December 2018. Clinical success was defined as drainage resulting in resolution of symptoms. Primary clinical success was defined as symptom resolution after the initial drainage procedure, and secondary success was defined as symptom resolution after additional drainage procedures. Operative intervention or death was considered clinical failure. Patient, collection, and procedural factors were assessed for their potential impact on the clinical outcome. RESULTS. Clinical success was achieved in 23 of 28 drainage procedures (82.1%), with primary success in 15 procedures. Of the five patients with failed drainage procedures, three required pancreatectomies, one required surgical washout, and one died from a disseminated infection. The median duration of drainage in the clinical success group was 25 days (range, 3-136 days), and patients with longer drainage periods had more successful outcomes (p = .04). Graft pancreatitis was diagnosed in five patients (17.9%) and was not associated with drainage outcome (p = .21). Collections were positive for bacterial growth in 13 patients (46.4%) and were high in amylase in 12 (42.9%). We observed drainage failure in collections with polymicrobial growth and in the presence of fistulas (p = .05 and p = .07, respectively). Patients with successful outcomes had smaller collection volumes (p = .045). No complications attributed to drainage were encountered. CONCLUSION. Percutaneous drainage is safe and effective for management of peripancreatic fluid collections after pancreas transplant.