Skip to content

Comparison of different methods for treatment of pseudocyst of pancreas

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Laparoscopic vs Endoscopic Drainage of Pseudocyst of Pancreas

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2012/09/002969
Enrollment
60
Registered
2012-09-06
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: null- ASA 1/2 patients with pseudocyst of pancreas following acute pancreatitis

Interventions

Intervention1: Gruoup I Laparoscopic Cystogastrostomy: Patients in this group will undergo laparoscopic cystogastrostomy for drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst Control Intervention1: Group II endoscopi

Sponsors

Indian Council of Medical research
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Symptomatic patients, with pseudocyst of size more than 6 cm and more than 6 weeks after an attack of acute pancreatitis, were included in the study

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: • Patients with chronic pancreatitis associated pseudocyst • Patients who have undergone any form of intervention previously • Patients with significant co-morbidities • Patients unfit for general anesthesia • Bleeding disorders • Patients refusing consent • Patients having significant necrotic debris not considered fit for endoscopic drainage. The presence of necrotic debris was assessed by ultrasound of the abdomen and if required magnetic resonance imaging. The volume of the cyst and that of necrotic debris was calculated and significant debris was defined as 30 % of debris volume/volume • Presence of a pseudoaneurysm

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
â?¢ Primary success rate was defined as cyst resolution by the intended modality after the index intervention within 4 weeks of interventionTimepoint: 4 weeks

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Complications requiring prolonged stay and /or repeat procedure Recurrence rates during a follow up of 3 months Conversion to the other mode of drainageTimepoint: 7 days, 6 weeks, 3 months

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactVirinder Kumar Bansal

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

drvkbansal@gmail.com01126593686

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026