Planned Staged Reoperative Necrosectomy Using an Abdominal Zipper in the Treatment of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Infection increases mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of infection on mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Eligible prospective and retrospective studies were identified through manual and electronic searches (August 2015). The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed with subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 71 studies (n = 6970 patients). Thirty-seven (52%) studies used a prospective design and 25 scored ≥5 points on the NOS suggesting a low risk of bias. Forty studies were descriptive and 31 studies evaluated invasive interventions. In total, 801 of 2842 patients (28%) with infected necroses and 537 of 4128 patients (13%) with sterile necroses died with an odds ratio [OR] of 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-3.31) based on all studies and 2.02 (95%CI, 1.61-2.53) in the studies with the lowest bias risk. The OR for prospective studies was 2.96 (95%CI, 2.51-3.50). In sensitivity analyses excluding studies evaluating invasive interventions, the OR was 3.30 (95%CI, 2.81-3.88). Patients with infected necrosis and organ failure had a mortality of 35.2% while concomitant sterile necrosis and organ failure was associated with a mortality of 19.8%. If the patients had infected necrosis without organ failure the mortality was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are more than twice as likely to die if the necrosis becomes infected. Both organ failure and infected necrosis increase mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology

Planned re-laparotomy or damage control laparotomy (DCL), first described by Dr. Harlan Stone in 1983, has become a widely utilized technique in a broad range of patients and operative situations. Studies have validated the use of DCL by demonstrating decreased mortality and morbidity in trauma, general surgery and abdominal vascular catastrophes. Indications for planned re-laparotomy include severe physiologic derangements, coagulopathy, concern for bowel ischemia, and abdominal compartment syndrome. The immunology of DCL patients is not well described in humans, but promising animal studies suggest a benefit from the open abdomen (OA) and several human trials on this subject are currently underway. Optimal critical care of patients with OA's, including sedation, paralysis, nutrition, antimicrobial and fluid management strategies have been associated with improved closure rates and recovery.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage of infected retroperitoneal necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effect of retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage on infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 18 patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) undergoing retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage from May 2006 to April 2012 in our hospital. All patients had infected retroperitoneal necrosis and single or multiple peritoneal abscesses. Eleven patients transferred to our hospital were treated with the retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage within 24-72 hours after admission. Conservative treatments were given to eight patients. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage were applied 3-11 days after admission.

RESULTS

All patients had infection of necrotic pancreas or peripancreatic tissues. Twelve patients had organ failure. Three patients underwent secondary surgery. Laparotomy with debridement and drainage were applied to one patient who had a huge lesser sac abscess 7 days after first surgery. The other two patients were given secondary retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage. One case was complicated by retroperitoneal hemorrhage, four cases had pancreatic leakage, and no intestinal fistula was found. The patients' heart rate, respiration, temperature, and white blood cell count were significantly improved 48 hours after surgery compared with those prior to surgery (p<0.05). The average length of stay in hospitals was 40.8 days (range, 6-121 days), and the drainage tube indwelling time was 44.4 days (range, 2-182 days).

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage is an SAP surgical treatment with a minimally invasive procedure and a good effect, and can be applied for infected retroperitoneal necrosis in early SAP.

Surgical strategies for management of the open abdomen

Since the mid-1990s the surgical community has seen a surge in the prevalence of open abdomens (OAs) reported in the surgical literature and in clinical practice. The OA has proven to be effective in decreasing mortality and immediate postoperative complications; however, it may come at the cost of delayed morbidity and the need for further surgical procedures. Indications for leaving the abdomen open have broadened to include damage control surgery, abdominal compartment syndrome, and abdominal sepsis. The surgical options for management of the OA are now more diverse and sophisticated, but there is a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrating the superiority of any particular method. Additionally, critical care strategies for optimization of the patient with an OA are still being developed. Review of the literature suggests a bimodal distribution of primary closure rates, with early closure dependent on postoperative intensive care management and delayed closure more affected by the choice of the temporary abdominal closure technique. Invariably, a small fraction of patients requiring OA management fail to have primary fascial closure and require some form of biologic fascial bridge with delayed ventral hernia repair in the future.

Nutrition and the open abdomen

Adequate nutrition support is critical in the management of patients with an open abdomen. Despite the literature supporting its use in trauma patients, provider concerns and clinical controversies remain regarding the early administration and long-term sequelae of enteral nutrition (EN) therapy in these patients. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical concepts behind the use of the open abdomen, as well as examine the altered nutrition requirements associated with the maintenance of a temporary laparostomy. The rationale for early EN is described, as well as the pros and cons surrounding the use of supplemental parenteral nutrition in those patients unable to meet nutrition goals enterally in a reasonable time frame. Finally, an open abdomen nutrition support algorithm is provided as part of the critical care plan in these patients who represent the sickest of surgical patients.

Critical care issues in managing complex open abdominal wound

Over the past 30 years, surgical specialties have introduced and expanded the role of open abdominal management in complicated operative cases, necessitating an intensivist's understanding of the indications and unique intensive care unit (ICU) issues related to the open abdomen. When presented with the open abdomen, resuscitation to correct shock is of primary concern. This is accomplished by correction of hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy in trauma and adequate resolution of intra-abdominal hypertension or source control in general surgery. These patients typically require deep sedation and often paralysis and benefit from low-volume ventilatory strategies to prevent and treat acute lung injury. Antibiotics must be tailored to the clinical situation, but in most cases, 24 hours of perioperative treatment is all that is required. In cases of gross contamination and peritonitis, a 5- to 7-day course of broad-spectrum antibiotics may be of benefit.Adequate source control has been demonstrated to have the greatest impact on outcome and when the patient's clinical milieu dictates, bedside washouts. Enteral nutrition should be instituted as early as possible after intestinal continuity has been reestablished. Additional protein is required to account for losses from the open abdomen. Reconstruction may require staging, but in general, should proceed following resolution of shock and control of sepsis. Elevated multiorgan dysfunction score, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and a rise in peak inspiratory pressure portend poor source control and could result in failure of fascial closure. If unable to proceed to fascial closure, then considerations should be made for planned ventral hernia and subsequent abdominal wall reconstruction.

Progress in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis

Pancreatic necrosis, a complication of severe pancreatitis, may become infected, resulting in significant morbidity and potential mortality. Infected necrosis was heretofore considered a surgical condition, and despite aggressive operative management, the mortality remained high. With a better understanding of the natural history of necrosis, established methods to diagnose infection and the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques, less aggressive therapies have been utilized with some success. The present study evaluated a step-up approach for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis, utilizing endoscopic and percutaneous techniques, and if ineffective, necrosectomy with a minimally invasive retroperitoneal approach. They compared this step-up approach to the standard open necrosectomy. They demonstrated that when using such an approach compared with open necrosectomy, the frequency of major complications such as organ failure, perforation, fistula or even death was significantly less than in those who received conventional open necrosectomy. Indeed, for those randomized to the step-up approach, roughly a third of the patients were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage alone. In the long-term, development of diabetes was also less frequent in those receiving less aggressive therapy. These findings, in combination with other reports, suggest that the dogma that open necrosectomy is mandatory for all patients with infected necrosis should be re-evaluated, and that less aggressive treatments as part of a multidisciplinary approach can reduce morbidity and mortality.

The management of the open abdomen in trauma and emergency general surgery: part 1-damage control

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen technique, after both military and civilian trauma, emergency general or vascular surgery, has been used in some form for the past 30 years. There have been several hundred citations on the indications and the management of the open abdomen. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management committee convened a study group to organize the world's literature for the management of the open abdomen. This effort was divided into two parts: damage control and the management of the open abdomen. Only damage control is presented in this study. Part 1 is divided into indications for the open abdomen, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal repair, and nutrition support of the open abdomen.

METHODS

A literature review was performed for more than 30 years. Prospective and retrospective studies were included. The reviews and case reports were excluded. Of 1,200 articles, 95 were selected. Seventeen surgeons reviewed the articles with four defined criteria. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma primer was used to grade the evidence.

RESULTS

There was only one level I recommendation. A patient with documented abdominal compartment syndrome should undergo decompressive laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

The open abdomen technique remains a heroic maneuver in the care of the critically ill trauma or surgical patient. For the best outcomes, a protocol for the indications, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, and nutrition support should be in place.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing debridement of pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic necrosis is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The Atlanta Classification underwent proposed revisions in 2007 to better categorize acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

From 1999 to 2008, patients with pancreatic necrosis treated with surgical debridement were analyzed. Computed tomography (CT) images were independently reviewed to classify of pancreatic collections according to the revised Atlanta classification.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were categorized as infected extrapancreatic necrosis (40%), sterile extrapancreatic necrosis (29%), infected pancreatic necrosis (15%), sterile pancreatic necrosis (11%), or post-necrotic collection (5%). Mortality was 14%, and morbidity was 55%. Debridement with external drainage or open packing was associated with higher mortality than cystgastrostomy (p = 0.03). Atlanta Classification was not associated with operative procedure or mortality. Degree of chronic disease, demonstrated by albumin level, and infection were associated with longer stay (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Type of necrosis by the revised Atlanta Classification was not associated with outcomes or type of operation. Debridement by cystgastrostomy was associated with lower mortality rates than external drainage or open packing. Length of stay was increased in patients with evidence of chronic disease, infection, and postoperative complications. Necrotizing pancreatitis continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality and should undergo aggressive treatment at tertiary care centers.

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis

The past two decades have seen major advances in the understanding and clinical management of acute pancreatitis, yet it still lacks a specific treatment, and management is largely supportive and reactive. Surgery is seeing a diminishing role in the early phase of acute pancreatitis but still predominates in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis--the most lethal complication. This review focuses on recent literature but begins with an account of the evolution of infected necrosis management, which serves to place current treatment into context. Although surgeons initially emphasized less invasive approaches to pancreatic necrosis, they now compete with new techniques developed by pioneering physicians, radiologists, and interventional endoscopists. Clinicians adopting the new techniques will need to emulate the dedication and commitment that the current pioneers demonstrate. Although new techniques are still evolving, they should be evaluated against existing standards of treatment.