Minimally invasive pancreatic necrosectomy

Together We Stand, Divided We Fall: A Multidisciplinary Approach in Complicated Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory condition with a mild course in most patients, but 20-30% evolve to single or multiple organ dysfunction and pancreatic/peripancreatic necrosis, with potentially infected collections. In the first weeks of disease, a systemic inflammatory syndrome (SIRS) dominates the clinical setting, and early management decisions in this precocious phase can change the course of the disease. Imaging is crucial in the diagnosis, and since the adoption of the revised Atlanta classification, four different types of pancreatic/peripancreatic collections have been defined. The management of the complicated forms of AP has been defined by several treatment guidelines, and the main indication for intervention is local infection, preferably in walled-off necrosis. Open surgery necrosectomy is associated with a very high rate of morbimortality, giving a place to different multidisciplinary methodologies, emphasizing drainage and necrosectomy techniques in a "step-up" approach starting from mini-invasive endoscopic drainage and moving, if needed, to progressively more invasive techniques, including interventional radiology and mini-invasive surgery. With the advent of several new technologies in the specialties involved, the complicated AP cases which need drainage and necrosectomy benefit from a new era of multidisciplinary cooperation, permitting higher efficacy with lower levels of morbimortality and reducing hospital stay and costs.

Pancreatic disorders in children: New clues on the horizon

Pancreatic disorders in children represent a growing health problem in pediatric patients. In the past two decades, several advances have been made in the knowledge of pediatric pancreatic disorders, with better understanding of different etiologies and clinical manifestations of these disorders. Moreover, many efforts have been made in pancreatology, aiming to define guidelines in the management of pancreatitis in children, initially based on the available information in adults. A multidisciplinary and multicenter approach is necessary to better determine pancreatic disease pathways and treatment options in children.

Novel strategies for the treatment of acute pancreatitis based on the determinants of severity

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common disease for which a specific treatment remains elusive. The key determinants of the outcome from AP are persistent organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis. The prevention and treatment of these determinants provides a framework for the development of specific treatment strategies. The gut-lymph concept provides a common mechanism for systemic inflammation and organ dysfunction. Acute and critical illness, including AP, is associated with intestinal ischemia and drastic changes in the composition of gut lymph, which bypasses the liver to drain into the systemic circulation immediately proximal to the major organ systems which fail. The external diversion of gut lymph and the targeting of treatments to counter the toxic elements in gut lymph offers novel approaches to the prevention and treatment of persistent organ failure. Infected pancreatic necrosis is increasingly treated with less invasive techniques, the mainstay of which is drainage, both endoscopic and percutaneous. Further improvements will occur with the strategies to accelerate liquefaction and through a fundamental re-design of drains, both of which will increase drainage efficacy. The determinants of severity and outcome in patients admitted with AP provide the basis for innovative treatment strategies. The priorities are to translate the gut-lymph concept to clinical practice and to improve the design and active use of drains for infected complications of AP.

Minimally invasive percutaneous catheter drainage versus open laparotomy with temporary closure for treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with early-stage severe acute pancreatitis

This study aimed to examine the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) versus open laparotomy with temporary closure in the treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) in patients with early-stage severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Clinical data of 212 patients who underwent PCD and 61 patients who were given open laparotomy with temporary closure in our hospital over the last 10-year period were retrospectively analyzed, and outcomes were compared, including total and post-decompression intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, physiological data, organ dysfunction, complications, and mortality. The results showed that the organ dysfunction scores were similar between the PCD and open laparotomy groups 72 h after decompression. In the PCD group, 134 of 212 (63.2%) patients required postoperative ICU support versus 60 of 61 (98.4%) in the open laparotomy group (P<0.001). Additionally, 87 (41.0%) PCD patients experienced complications as compared to 49 of 61 (80.3%) in the open laparotomy group (P<0.001). There were 40 (18.9%) and 32 (52.5%) deaths, respectively, in the PCD and open laparotomy groups (P<0.001). In conclusion, minimally invasive PCD is superior to open laparotomy with temporary closure, with fewer complications and deaths occurring in PCD group.

Surgery for Acute Pancreatitis

Surgery for acute pancreatitis has undergone significant changes over the last 3 decades. A better understanding of the pathophysiology has contributed to this, but the greatest driver for change has been the rise of less invasive interventions in the fields of laparoscopy, endoscopy and radiology. Surgery has a very limited role in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. The most common indication for intervention in acute pancreatitis is for the treatment of complications and most notably the treatment of infected walled off necrosis. Here, the step-up approach has become established, with prior drainage (either endoscopic or percutaneous) followed by delay for maturing of the wall and then debridement by endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical methods. Open surgery is only indicated when this approach fails. Other indications for surgery in acute pancreatitis are for the treatment of acute compartment syndrome, non-occlusive intestinal ischaemia and necrosis, enterocutaneous fistulae, vascular complications and pseudocyst. Surgery also has a role in the prevention of recurrent acute pancreatitis by cholecystectomy. Despite the more restricted role, surgeons have an important contribution to make in the multidisciplinary care of patients with complicated acute pancreatitis.

Study on acute recent stage pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas which involves the pancreas and surrounding tissue, and systemic inflammation with a characteristic systemic increase of vascular permeability and increased risk of multiple organ dysfunction. Currently, the pathogenesis of AP is fuzzy, and the diagnosis and treatment need to be standardized. Nevertheless, increased knowledge of AP may achieve more thorough understanding of the pathogenesis. The use of further advanced diagnostic tools and superior treatment, potentially will help clinicians to manage AP at an appropriate stage. However, in view of the multi factorial disease and the complex clinical manifestations, the management of patients with AP is also remaining areas for improvement.

Treatment of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), which is the most serious type of this disorder, is associated with high morbidity and mortality. SAP runs a biphasic course. During the first 1-2 wk, a pro-inflammatory response results in systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). If the SIRS is severe, it can lead to early multisystem organ failure (MOF). After the first 1-2 wk, a transition from a pro-inflammatory response to an anti-inflammatory response occurs; during this transition, the patient is at risk for intestinal flora translocation and the development of secondary infection of the necrotic tissue, which can result in sepsis and late MOF. Many recommendations have been made regarding SAP management and its complications. However, despite the reduction in overall mortality in the last decade, SAP is still associated with high mortality. In the majority of cases, sterile necrosis should be managed conservatively, whereas in infected necrotizing pancreatitis, the infected non-vital solid tissue should be removed to control the sepsis. Intervention should be delayed for as long as possible to allow better demarcation and liquefaction of the necrosis. Currently, the step-up approach (delay, drain, and debride) may be considered as the reference standard intervention for this disorder.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections

PURPOSE

Pancreatic surgery is technically complex and requires considerable expertise. Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery adds the need for considerable experience with advanced laparoscopic techniques. Despite the technical difficulties, an increasing number of centers propagate the use of laparoscopy in pancreatic surgery over the last decade.

METHODS

In this review, we provide an overview of the literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Larger prospective randomized studies have emerged in the subset of laparoscopic or retroperitoneoscopic surgery for acute pancreatitis, considerable single center experience has been reported for laparoscopic pancreatic tail resection, and laparoscopic pancreatic head resection, however, is still restricted to a few experienced centers worldwide.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established, in particular for the treatment of benign and premalignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. It has been shown to decrease postoperative pain, narcotic use, and length of hospital stay in larger single center experience. However, prospective trials are needed in laparoscopic resective pancreatic surgery to evaluate its advantages, safety, and efficacy in the treatment of pancreatic neoplasms and in particular in malignant pancreatic tumors.

Minimally invasive necrosectomy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies

AIM

The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to compare minimally invasive necrosectomy (MIN) versus open necrosectomy (ON) surgery for infected necrosis of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

One randomized controlled trial and 3 clinical controlled trials were selected, with a total of 336 patients (215 patients who underwent MIN and 121 patients underwent ON) included after searching in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BioMed Central, Science Citation Index (from inception to August 2011), Greynet, SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), National Technological Information Service, British Library Integrated catalogue, and the Current Controlled Trials. Statistical analysis is performed using the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

After the analysis of the data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the MIN in terms of: incidence of multiple organ failure (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39) (P < 0.0001), incisional hernias (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.90) (P = 0.03), new-onset diabetes (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.88) (P = 0.03), and for the use of pancreatic enzymes (OR, 0.005; 95% CI, 0.04-0.57) (P = 0.005). No differences were found in terms of mortality rate (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18-1.05) (P = 0.06), multiple systemic complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01-8.60) (P = 0.51), surgical reintervention for further necrosectomy (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.00-3.07) (P = 0.19), intra-abdominal bleeding (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50) (P = 0.46), enterocutaneous fistula or perforation of visceral organs (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00) (P = 0.05), pancreatic fistula (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30-1.46) (P = 0.30), and surgical reintervention for postoperative complications (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.23-1.08) (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of comparative studies and high heterogeneity of the data present in the literature did not permit to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic. The results of the present meta-analysis might be helpful to design future high-powered randomized studies that compare MIN with ON for acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Video-assisted Laparoscopic Débridement for Retroperitoneal Pancreatic Collections: A Reliable Step-up Approach

Several minimal access routes have been implemented as a step-up approach to treat infected pancreatic necrosis. We evaluate our experience with a series of consecutive patients with pancreatic collections treated with video-assisted retroperitoneal débridement (VARD). Seven patients were consecutively treated with VARD: five patients after acute necrotizing pancreatitis, one chronic pancreatitis, and one patient with perforation after endoscopic sphincterotomy. The indication for VARD was: development of sepsis, positive direct culture of the necrosis, and compartment syndrome. The procedure was performed under general anesthesia and modified lateral decubitus. There were four left, two right, and one bilateral VARD. Mean hospital stay since admission to VARD procedure was 30 days (range, 12 to 72 days). Mean operative time was 63 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications. Two patients needed a second procedure to control sepsis. Most patients had a long intensive care unit (ICU) stay with 6.1 days (range, 2 to 22 days) mean postoperative ICU stay. One patient had a hypernatremia as a consequence of saline lavage and three patients presented pancreatic fistula that were managed with conservative treatment. There was no mortality. VARD approach is a recommended step-up approach to treat infected pancreatic necrosis, and its indication may be extended to treat other retroperitoneal collections.

SEMICYUC 2012. Recommendations for intensive care management of acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

Significant changes in the management of acute pancreatitis have taken place since the 2004 Pamplona Consensus Conference. The objective of this conference has been the revision and updating of the Conference recommendations, in order to unify the integral management of potentially severe acute pancreatitis in an ICU.

PARTICIPANTS

Spanish and international intensive medicine physicians, radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, emergency care physicians and other physicians involved in the treatment of acute pancreatitis. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION: The GRADE method has been used for drawing them up. DRAWING UP THE RECOMMENDATIONS: The selection of the committee members was performed by means of a public announcement. The bibliography has been revised from 2004 to the present day and 16 blocks of questions on acute pancreatitis in a ICU have been drawn up. Firstly, all the questions according to groups have been drawn up in order to prepare one document. This document has been debated and agreed upon by computer at the SEMICYUC Congress and lastly at the Consensus Conference which was held with the sole objective of drawing up these recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty two recommendations for acute pancreatitis management in an ICU have been presented. Of these 84 recommendations, we would emphasize the new determinants-based classification of acute pancreatitis severity, new surgical techniques and nutritional recommendations. Note. This summary only lists the 84 recommendations of the 16 questions blocks except blocks greater relevance and impact of its novelty or because they modify the current management.

Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common and potentially lethal disease. It is associated with significant morbidity and consumes enormous health care resources. Over the last 2 decades, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has undergone fundamental changes based on new conceptual insights and evidence from clinical studies. The majority of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis have sterile necrosis, which can be successfully treated conservatively. Emphasis of conservative treatment is on supportive measures and prevention of infection of necrosis and other complications. Patients with infected necrosis generally need to undergo an intervention, which has shifted from primary open necrosectomy in an early disease stage to a step-up approach, starting with catheter drainage if needed, followed by minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy once peripancreatic collections have sufficiently demarcated. This review provides an overview of current standards for conservative and invasive treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis using retroperitoneal necrosectomy with flexible endoscope: 10 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to provide our experience in the management of infected and drained pancreatic necrosis using the retroperitoneal approach.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study in a tertiary care university hospital. Thirty-two patients with confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis were studied. Superficial necrosectomy was performed with lavage and aspiration of debris. This was achieved though a retroperitoneal approach of the pancreatic area and under the direct vision of a flexible endoscope. The follow-up procedure using retroperitoneal endoscopy did not require taking the patient to the operating room. The main outcome measures were infection control, morbidity, and mortality related to technique, reintervention, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant morbidity or mortality related to the technique was observed in all of the patients with infected pancreatic necrosis treated with this retroperitoneal approach compared with published data using other approaches. Reinterventions were not required and patients are currently asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal access of the pancreatic area is a good approach for drainage and debridement of infected pancreatic necrosis. Translumbar retroperitoneal endoscopy allows exploration under direct visual guidance avoiding open transabdominal reintervention and the risk of contamination of the abdominal cavity. This technique does not increase morbidity and mortality, can be performed at the patients' bedside as many times as necessary, and has advantages over other retroperitoneal approaches.

Minimally invasive operations for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: comparison of minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy with endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

A "step-up" approach is currently the treatment of choice for acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy (MINE) and endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy (ETG) and to compare it to open necrosectomy (ONE).

METHODS

Patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to our institution from 1998 to 2010 (n = 334) were identified. From these, patients who underwent either ONE, MINE, or ETG were selected for further analysis. Statistical analysis employed 2-sided Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2010, 32 patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis were treated by minimally invasive procedures including MINE (n = 14) and ETG (n = 18) or with the classic technique of ONE (n = 30). Time from onset of symptoms to intervention was less for ONE than for MINE or ETG (median, 11 vs 39 vs 54 days; P < .05). The rate of critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock was greatest in ONE (93%) and MINE (71%) compared with ETG (17%; P < .05). Problems after ONE and MINE were ongoing sepsis (ONE 73% vs MINE 29% vs ETG 11%) and bleeding requiring intervention (ONE 26% vs MINE 21% vs ETG 17%). A specific complication of ETG was gastric perforation into the peritoneal cavity during the procedure (28%), requiring immediate open pseudocystogastrostomy. Laparotomy was necessary in 21% after MINE and 28% after ETG owing to specific complications or persistent infected necrosis. Overall mortality was greatest after ONE (ONE 63% vs MINE 21% vs ETG 6%; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality remains high in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Operative procedures should be delayed as long as possible to decrease morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive procedures can avoid laparotomy, but also introduce specific complications requiring immediate or secondary open operative treatment. Minimally invasive procedures require unique expertise and therefore should only be performed at specialized centers.

Short-term outcomes from a multicenter retrospective study in China comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) represents a relatively new solution. There are no studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with IPN. The aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic management for patients with IPN and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients with IPN who underwent open surgery (Open-group) or laparoscopic surgery (Lap-group) were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, white blood cell count, and APACHE II score upon admission, operative findings, major complications, and mortality were compared between the Open-group and the Lap-group. The Lap-group was further divided into two subgroups (early and late), and the operative difficulty was compared between the two subgroups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the Open-group and the Lap-group with respect to demographic data, white blood cell count, and APACHE II score. Although the mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Open-group than in the Lap-group, the estimated blood loss was significantly greater in the Open-group than in the Lap-group, as was the rate of complications. The mean postoperative hospital stay in the Open-group was significant longer than in the Lap-group, too. In the Lap-group, the mean operating time, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate in the early subgroup were significantly lower than in the late subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic necrosectomy and the placement of an intermittent irrigation and continuous suction drainage system for IPN is feasible, effective, and of minimal invasiveness. The late laparoscopic necrosectomy is relatively difficult.

A comprehensive classification of invasive procedures for treating the local complications of acute pancreatitis based on visualization, route, and purpose

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The lack of a system to classify invasive procedures to treat local complications of acute pancreatitis is an obstacle to comparing interventions. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive multidisciplinary classification.

METHODS

Standardized terminology was used to develop a classification of procedures based on three key components: how the lesion is visualized, the route used during the procedure, and the procedure's purpose. Gastroenterologists, radiologists, and surgeons (n = 22) from three New Zealand centers independently classified 15 published technique descriptions. Inter-rater reliability was calculated for each component. The classification's clarity, ease of use, and potential to achieve its objectives were rated on a Likert scale.

RESULTS

The classification's clarity, ease of use, and potential to achieve its objectives had median scores of 4/5. Inter-rater reliability for visualization, route, and purpose components was substantial at 0.73 (95% CI 0.63-0.82), 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.87), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.74), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This article describes the development and validation of a comprehensive classification for the wide range of procedures used to treat the local complications of acute pancreatitis. It has substantial inter-rater reliability and high acceptability, which should enhance communication between clinicians and facilitate comparison between procedures.

Minimally invasive retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy

INTRODUCTION

This article describes a case series outlining the experience and results of the retroperitoneal minimally invasive pancreatic necrosectomy (MIPN) procedure performed by, or done under the supervision of, a single surgeon.

METHODS

All data of the patients who underwent MIPN from 2006 to 2008 were entered into a prospectively maintained, computerized database.

RESULTS

A total of 93 MIPN procedures were performed on 32 patients. All patients had severe acute pancreatitis. The median number of MIPN procedures per patient was 3. Only 6 patients needed intensive care unit (ICU) admission after MIPN. There were 15 complications, which included bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 3), bowel fistulae (n = 7), thromboembolic events (n = 2) and acute myocardial infarction (n = 3). Four patients died after the procedure (13%); 1 died of ongoing multiorgan failure in spite of the MIPN. Four patients developed pancreatic pseudocysts within the follow-up period of 2 years. Three of these patients required intervention.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates that MIPN can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality and with good end results. The ICU dependency after the procedure is minimal. As seen in this series, multiple MIPNs may be needed to eradicate the necrosis satisfactorily. and IAP.

Open transgastric debridement and internal drainage of symptomatic non-infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

The best treatment options for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) are not well defined. A retrospective study of patients treated for WOPN with transgastric debridement and internal drainage was undertaken.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic non-infected WOPN treated with open transgastric debridement and internal drainage were evaluated.

RESULTS

In all, 51 patients underwent surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis during the study period. Ten patients (19%) were treated with open transgastric debridement and internal drainage for symptomatic non-infected WOPN. The median patient age was 40 years, the most common aetiology for pancreatitis was biliary, the mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was 2 and the delay to surgery was 100 days. The operating time was 118 min, with a blood loss of 50cc. One patient required reoperation, three patients had morbidity and there were no mortalities. The only factor associated with post-operative morbidity was the presence of positive cultures (P < 0.05). The length of stay (LOS) after surgery was 8 days, at a median follow-up of 18 months, one patient had late complications related to the surgery and the procedure was successful in 90% of the patients.

DISCUSSION

Open transgastric debridement with internal drainage of WOPN is safe and efficacious. Patients were clinically stable (no organ failure) and had a long delay in surgical intervention (100 days). In this select group of patients, the success, morbidity and mortality is similar to all reported minimally invasive techniques.

Minimally invasive approach to pancreatic necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

Conventional open surgery for infected pancreatic necrosis is associated with significant surgical morbidity, that is, wound complications, facial dehiscence, and intestinal fistulae. In recent years, there has been interest in attempting to reduce this surgical morbidity by adopting a number of minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with pancreatic necrosis underwent pancreatic necrosectomy by minimally invasive surgery (11 men, 4 women; age group: 25-64 years, mean age: 46 years). Apache II scores ranged from 5 to 14. Pancreatic necrosectomy was performed by laparoscopic transperitoneal approach in 12 patients (transmesocolic, 4 patients; transgastrocolic, 6 patients; and gastrohepatic omentum, 2 patients), by retroperitoneal approach in 2 patients, and by a combination of methods in 1 patient (endoscopic transgastric drainage followed by laparoscopic intracavity necrosectomy). Relook laparoscopy was done in 5 patients to assess for residual necrosis.

RESULTS

All the patients tolerated the procedure well, and there was no mortality. Two of them had pancreatic fistula, which eventually responded to conservative treatment. Three patients were converted to open necrosectomy because of bleeding or difficulty to access the area of necrosis. The mean operating time was 120 ± 10 minutes. There were no postoperative complications related to the procedure itself, such as major wound infections, intestinal fistulae, or postoperative hemorrhage. Postoperative computed tomographic scans confirmed adequacy of debridement. The average length of hospital stay after surgery was 14 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive necrosectomy is technically feasible and a body of evidence now suggests that acceptable outcomes can be achieved. There are no comparisons of results available, either with open surgery or among different minimally invasive techniques.

Infected pancreatic necrosis: minimizing the cut

The challenge for the pancreatologist managing patients with infected pancreatic necrosis is to devise a treatment algorithm that enables recovery but at the same time limits the morbidity and mortality. The current gold standard remains open necrosectomy. Recent literature contains scattered reports of endoscopic, radiologic, laparoscopic, percutaneous and lumbotomy approaches to managing patients with this condition. This literature review addresses the role of techniques that aim to minimize the physiological insult to the patient with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Open pancreatic necrosectomy in the multidisciplinary management of postinflammatory necrosis

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical outcome in a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing open necrosectomy for postinflammatory necrosis.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The last decade has witnessed major developments in the surgical management of pancreatic necrosis. Minimally invasive approaches have become established. However, there are limited data from contemporary open necrosectomy, in particular where multidisciplinary care and aggressive interventional radiology are used. This report provides data on outcome from open necrosectomy in a tertiary referral Hepatobiliary unit over the last decade.

METHODS

During the period January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2008, 1535 patients were admitted with a final discharge code of acute pancreatitis. Twenty-eight (1.8%) of all admissions underwent open surgical necrosectomy. Twenty-four (86%) were tertiary referral patients.

RESULTS

The median APACHE II score on admission was 10.5 (5-26). Median logistic organ dysfunction score on admission was 3 (0-10). Median LODS score after surgery was 2 (0-8). Twenty patients (71%) underwent radiologically guided drainage of collections before surgery. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 2 (7%), 4 further deaths occurred in patients after discharge from intensive care resulting in a total of 6 (22%) episode-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern open necrosectomy can be performed without the procedure-related deterioration in organ dysfunction associated with major debridement. Multidisciplinary care with an emphasis on aggressive radiologic intervention before and after surgery results in acceptable outcomes in this cohort of critically ill patients. Newer laparoscopic techniques must demonstrate similar outcomes in the setting of stage-matched severity before wider acceptance.

A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death.

RESULTS

The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P=0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P=0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P=0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.)

Surgical management of pancreatic necrosis: towards lesser and later

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Our aim was to determine the overall success rate and survival rate with respect to the timing of intervention in the management of pancreatic necrosis. The use of minimally invasive pancreatic necrosectomy was also examined.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study carried out in a tertiary referral hospital. The subjects were all patients who suffered from acute pancreatic necrosis with emergency interventions from January 2001 to December 2007. For outcome measures, special emphasis was placed on the overall success rate and survival rate with respect to the timing of intervention. The success rate of percutaneous pancreatic necrosectomy (PCPN) was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients with pancreatic necrosis were studied. The overall mortality rate was 26.9% and the rate was significantly higher in those patients who had earlier intervention (before 6 weeks). Eleven patients had PCPN. There were 2 failures due to PCPN in the early phase; 2 had partial success, while the procedure was completely successful to remove all the necrotic tissues in the other 7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

With a multidisciplinary approach, particularly with sophisticated intensive care, most patients with pancreatic necrosis can survive the initial phase. Open surgery should be limited to simple drainage and laparostomy to relieve the abdominal tension. Active intervention preferably should be delayed until the necrosis has become walled off, when a variety of minimally invasive maneuvers, notably percutaneous necrosectomy, can be offered to remove the debris. The surgical management of pancreatic necrosis should change towards a strategy of "lesser and later".

Classification of the severity of acute pancreatitis: how many categories make sense?

There is an ongoing effort to revise the 1992 Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis in the light of emerging evidence. The categorization of the severity of acute pancreatitis is one of the key elements of the classification. This paper aims to define the optimal number of categories and provide their definitions on sound clinical grounds.

Current status of minimally invasive necrosectomy for post-inflammatory pancreatic necrosis

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews current knowledge on minimally invasive pancreatic necrosectomy.

BACKGROUND

Blunt (non-anatomical) debridement of necrotic tissue at laparotomy is the standard method of treatment of infected post-inflammatory pancreatic necrosis. Recognition that laparotomy may add to morbidity by increasing postoperative organ dysfunction has led to the development of alternative, minimally invasive methods for debridement. This study reports the status of minimally invasive necrosectomy by different approaches.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE for the period 1996-2008 were undertaken. Only studies with original data and information on outcome were included. This produced a final population of 28 studies reporting on 344 patients undergoing minimally invasive necrosectomy, with a median (range) number of patients per study of nine (1-53). Procedures were categorized as retroperitoneal, endoscopic or laparoscopic.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients underwent retroperitoneal necrosectomy, of whom 58 (41%) had complications and 18 (13%) required laparotomy. There were 22 (16%) deaths. Overall, 157 patients underwent endoscopic necrosectomy; major complications were reported in 31 (20%) and death in seven (5%). Laparoscopic necrosectomy was carried out in 46 patients, of whom five (11%) required laparotomy and three (7%) died.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive necrosectomy is technically feasible and a body of evidence now suggests that acceptable outcomes can be achieved. There are no comparisons of results, either with open surgery or among different minimally invasive techniques.

Minimally invasive management of pancreatic abscess, pseudocyst, and necrosis: a systematic review of current guidelines

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have been used to manage infected pancreatic necrosis and its local complications, although there are no randomised trials to evaluate these techniques. The aims of this study were to review the scope and quality of recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines on the role of percutaneous catheter drainage and endoscopic techniques for pancreatic abscess, pseudocyst, and infected pancreatic necrosis and identify the degree of consensus between guidelines.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to identify current guidelines from any professional body published in the English language. Guidelines were analysed to determine their specific recommendations for using percutaneous catheter drainage and endoscopic techniques to manage pancreatic abscess, infected pseudocyst, and infected pancreatic necrosis.

RESULTS

Sixteen guidelines were reviewed. Percutaneous catheter drainage for pancreatic abscess was recommended by eight guidelines; for infected pseudocysts, one guideline did not recommend its use and six recommended its use; for infected necrosis, two guidelines did not recommend its use and four recommended its use. Endoscopic management of both pancreatic abscess and infected pseudocyst was recommended by seven guidelines; for infected necrosis, endoscopic management was recommended by ten guidelines. Ten guidelines did not include levels of evidence to support their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines lacked consensus in their recommendations for minimally invasive management of pancreatic abscess, infected pseudocyst, and infected necrosis, and few recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence. More prospective trials are needed to provide evidence where it is lacking, which should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines.

Practical strategies for case selection in minimally invasive necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive necrosectomy is an umbrella term encapsulating the retroperitoneal, endoscopic and laparoscopic approaches. However, current evidence is unclear in terms of which approach to select in any particular setting.

METHODS/RESULTS

This leading article provides a pragmatic guide to approach selection in treating pancreatic necrosis with particular reference to the use of minimally invasive approaches. Current evidence in relation to timing of surgery, use of fine-needle aspiration and detailed imaging by magnetic resonance scanning is incorporated into a modern treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSION

The era of minimally invasive necrosectomy has arrived. In the absence of randomised trial evidence, the keys to contemporary management of pancreatic necrosis are good multidisciplinary care, adequate high-quality imaging and careful consideration of all available treatment options including traditional open approaches.

Minimally invasive necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis represents a serious and therapeutically challenging complication. Percutaneous drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis is often unsuccessful. Alternatively, open necrosectomies are associated with high morbidity. Recently, minimally invasive necrosectomy techniques have been tried with satisfying results; however, they frequently necessitate multiple sessions for definitive necrosectomy. To evaluate results of single large-port laparoscopic necrosectomy for proven infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Eight patients presenting proven infected pancreatic necrosis during course of acute pancreatitis and not responding to radiological drainage were prospectively offered minimally invasive necrosectomy. Laparoscopic necrosectomy were performed using a single large port placed along the drain tract directly into the infected necrosis. In all patients, drainage was placed during laparoscopic necrosectomy for continuous postoperative lavage.

RESULTS

No perioperative complications were recorded with a median operative time of 87 +/- 42 minutes. No blood transfusions were needed. No surgical postoperative morbidity and mortality were recorded. In all cases, except for one patient with multiple abscesses, only one session of necrosectomy was sufficient to completely clear the necrotic abscess. Laparoscopic necrosectomy was successful in all patients, and none required complementary surgical or radiological treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive necrosectomy has been safe and highly efficient through single large-port laparoscopy for infected pancreatic necrosis in our series of patients. Minimally invasive necrosectomy is a promising technique for infected necrotizing pancreatitis and should be regarded as a valid therapeutic option for necrotizing pancreatitis.