Percutaneous catheter-directed debridement of infected pancreatic necrosis: results in 20 patients

Percutaneous Chemical and Mechanical Necrosectomy for Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that percutaneous combined chemical and mechanical necrosectomy using a Malecot anchor drain and an Arrow-Trerotola percutaneous thrombolytic device (PTD) in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is feasible, safe, and effective compared with a control group undergoing mechanical necrosectomy alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective analysis, patients with WOPN not amenable to endoscopic-guided cystogastrostomy placement were studied as case and control groups. The patients in the case group underwent percutaneous combined chemical (hydrogen peroxide 3%) and mechanical necrosectomy using a Malecot anchor drain and/or Arrow-Trerotola PTD from December 2020 to April 2022. The controls underwent mechanical necrosectomy alone without chemical necrosectomy. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution of the cavity on follow-up noncontrast computed tomography scans with subsequent drain removal.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients in the case group and 11 patients in the control group underwent percutaneous drain placement followed by percutaneous combined chemical and mechanical necrosectomy (case group) or mechanical necrosectomy only (control group) for WOPN. Drain placement and necrosectomy were technically successful in all patients studied. One patient in the case group developed postprocedural sepsis because of communication between the cavity and the splenic vein. Another patient in the case group developed bleeding from a branch of the pancreaticoduodenal artery on postnecrosectomy day 9, which was successfully embolized by interventional radiology. No pancreaticocutaneous fistula was reported at the 3-month follow-up. The clinical success rates in the case and control groups were 100% and 38.4%, respectively (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous combined chemical and mechanical necrosectomy is a feasible, safe, and effective treatment of WOPN.

[A modified method for percutaneous drainage of acute necrotic collections in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a modified method for percutaneous drainage of acute necrotic collections in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Minimally invasive surgical technologies were used in 74 patients with infected acute necrotic collections at the Krasnodar Regional Clinical Hospital No. 2 between 2017 and 2019. Of these, 59 (79.7%) people underwent percutaneous drainage as a final treatment. In 11 (14.9%) patients, video sequestrectomy through the fistula was additionally used to increase efficiency of percutaneous drainage.

RESULTS

PCD in our modification implies delivery of double-lumen drains 26-32 Fr in the same plane to zones of necrosis, their programmed replacement for prevention of obstruction and flexible endoscopy for control of pathological process. Local purulent-necrotic parapancreatitis occurred in 31 (41.9%) patients, widespread parapancreatitis - in 43 (58.1%) patients. There were 339 minimally invasive interventions. Laparotomy was required in 4 (5.4%) patients. Incidence of perioperative complications was 10.6%, mortality - 16.2%.

CONCLUSION

A modified percutaneous drainage method may be used as final surgical treatment in 79.7% of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

[Technological features of open and minimally invasive surgical treatment of local complications of purulent-necrotic pancreatitis]

There are various options for surgical treatment of purulent-necrotic pancreatitis with significant technological differences. Combining surgical methods other than traditional ones into a group of minimally invasive ones based on the principle of the absence of standard laparotomy is not entirely correct. The review presents modern methods of surgical treatment of acute pancreatitis, comparison of their technology regarding classical stages of surgical intervention and their classification.

Safety and efficacy of early image-guided percutaneous interventions in acute severe necrotizing pancreatitis: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is managed conservatively in early phase of the disease. Even minimally invasive procedure is preferred after 21 days of onset and there is a paucity of data on decision and outcomes of early radiological interventions. This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of early image-guided percutaneous interventions in management of acute severe necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was performed after obtaining Institutional review board approval for analyzing hospital records of patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis from January 2012 to July 2017. Seventy-eight consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and acute necrotic collections (ANC) were managed with percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) and catheter-directed necrosectomy, in early phase of the disease (< 21 days). Clinical data and laboratory parameters of the included patients were evaluated until discharge from hospital, or mortality.

RESULTS

Overall survival rate was 73.1%. Forty-two (53.8%) patients survived with PCD alone, while the remaining 15 (19.2%) survivors needed additional necrosectomy. The timing of intervention from the start of the hospitalization to drainage was 14.3 ± 2.4 days. Significant risk factors for mortality were the presence of organ system failure, need for mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score. An APACHE II score cutoff value of 15 was a significant discriminant for predicting survival with catheter-directed necrosectomy.

CONCLUSION

An early PCD of ANC in clinically deteriorating patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis, along with aggressive catheter-directed necrosectomy can avoid surgical interventions, and improve outcome in a significant proportion of patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Infections of the Hepatobiliary System

Hepatobiliary infections account for a small but clinically important proportion of emergency department presentations. They present a clinical challenge due to the broad range of imaging characteristics on presentation. Recognition of complications is imperative to drive appropriate patient care and resource utilization to avoid diagnostic pitfalls and avert adverse patient outcomes. A thorough understanding of anatomy infectious pathology of hepatobiliary system is essential in the emergency setting to confidently diagnose and guide medical intervention. Many presentations of hepatobiliary infection have characteristic imaging features on individual imaging modalities with others requiring the assimilation of findings of multiple imaging modalities along with incorporating the clinical context and multispecialist consultation. Familiarity with the strengths of individual imaging modalities in the radiologists' arsenal is imperative to guide the appropriate utilization of resources, particularly in the emergent time sensitive setting. Accurate identification and diagnosis of hepatobiliary infections is vital for appropriate patient care and management stratification.

Pancreatic necrosis: Complications and changing trend of treatment

Incidence of acute pancreatitis seems to be increasing in the Western countries and has been associated with significantly increased morbidity. Nearly 80% of the patients with acute pancreatitis undergo resolution; some develop complications including pancreatic necrosis. Infection of pancreatic necrosis is the leading cause of death in these patients. A significant portion of these patients needs surgical interventions. Traditionally, the “gold standard” procedure has been the open surgical necrosectomy, which is now being completed by the relatively lesser invasive interventions. Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedures include endoscopic drainage, percutaneous image-guided catheter drainage, and retroperitoneal drainage. This review article discusses the open and MIS interventions for pancreatic necrosis with each having its own respective benefits and disadvantages are covered.

A Low Impact Approach to Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Review of a Case Series

BACKGROUND

Infected pancreatic necrosis develops in approximately one third of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality rates. Historically, open necrosectomy has been the mainstay of management for these patients but is in itself a morbid procedure. In recent times, minimally invasive techniques have evolved to allow a less invasive approach to these patients. Percutaneous catheter drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis is a technique that has been demonstrated to be potentially useful in the treatment of this group of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The aim of this study was to review outcomes and define the technique of percutaneous catheter drainage in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis. All patients with infected pancreatic necrosis were exclusively treated with percutaneous drainage over the study period. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, number and size of drains, drainage technique and drain management, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, nutritional requirements, and morbidity and mortality data were evaluated for the patient group. Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to assess the progression of the disease process and the effectiveness of the treatment.

RESULTS

There were nine patients with infected pancreatic necrosis in this case series between 2007 and 2012, all of whom were treated with percutaneous catheter drainage alone. The median APACHE II score in the patient group was 11, with a median stay in the ICU of 3 d and median hospital stay of 41 d. On average, nine CT scans were performed per patient during the hospital admission. A median of three drains were inserted per patient, and in the course of the study, it was evident that the larger drain size was the most effective. In eight of the nine patients in the group, complications developed that were both directly and indirectly related to the pancreatitis, but were effectively managed. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous catheter drainage as a stand-alone intervention is an alternative strategy for infected pancreatic necrosis and can be used with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates in this challenging group of patients.

Percutaneous Catheter Drainage in Infected Pancreatitis Necrosis: a Systematic Review

The primary aim of this study was to present the outcomes of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in patients with infected pancreatitis necrosis. A second aim was to focus on disease severity, catheter size, and additional surgical intervention. A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library (January 1998 to February 2015) databases was conducted. All randomized, non-randomized, and retrospective studies with data on PCD techniques and outcomes in patients with infected pancreatitis necrosis were included. Studies that reported data on PCD along with other interventions without the possibility to discriminate results specific to PCD were excluded. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, and definitive successful treatment with percutaneous catheter drainage alone. Fifteen studies of 577 patients were included. There was only one randomized, controlled trial, and most others were retrospective case series. Organ failure before PCD occurred in 55.3 % of patients. With PCD alone, definitive successful treatment was 56.2 % of patients. Additional surgical intervention was required after PCD in 38.5 % of patients. The overall mortality rate was 18 % (104 of 577 patients). Complications occurred in 25.1 % of patients, and fistula was the most common complication. PCD is an efficient tool for treatment in the majority of patients with infected pancreatitis necrosis as the only intervention. Multiple organ failures before PCD are negative parameters for the outcome of the disease. Large catheters fail to prove to be more effective for draining necrotic tissue. However, in the extent of multi-morbid patients, to determine one single prognostic factor seems to be difficult.

Better Outcomes if Percutaneous Drainage Is Used Early and Proactively in the Course of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes after percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) for acute necrotizing pancreatitis versus those in a randomized controlled trial as a reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2010 and August 2014, CT-guided PCD was the primary treatment for 39 consecutive patients with pancreatic necrosis. The indication for PCD was the clinical finding of uncontrolled pancreatic juice leakage rather than infected necrosis. Subsequent to PCD, the drains were proactively studied with fluoroscopic contrast medium every 3 days to ensure patency and position. Drains were ultimately maneuvered to the site of leakage. These 39 patients were compared with 43 patients from the Pancreatitis, Necrosectomy versus Step-up Approach (PANTER) trial.

RESULTS

The CT severity index was similar between studies (median of 8 in each). Time from onset of acute pancreatitis to PCD was shorter in the present series (median, 23 d vs 30 d). The total number of procedures (PCD and subsequent fluoroscopic drain studies) per patient was greater in the present series (mean, 14 vs 2). More patients in the PANTER trial had organ failure (62% vs 84%), required open or endoscopic necrosectomy (0% vs 60%), and experienced in-hospital mortality (0% vs 19%; P < .05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Even though patients in the present series had a similar CT severity index as those in the PANTER trial, the former group showed lower incidences of organ failure, need for necrosectomy, and in-hospital mortality. The use of a proactive PCD protocol early, before the development of severe sepsis, appeared to be effective.

Necrotizing pancreatitis: diagnosis, imaging, and intervention

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is a severe form of acute pancreatitis characterized by necrosis in and around the pancreas and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although acute interstitial edematous pancreatitis is diagnosed primarily on the basis of signs, symptoms, and laboratory test findings, the diagnosis and severity assessment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis are based in large part on imaging findings. On the basis of the revised Atlanta classification system of 2012, necrotizing pancreatitis is subdivided anatomically into parenchymal, peripancreatic, and combined subtypes, and temporally into clinical early (within 1 week of onset) and late (>1 week after onset) phases. Associated collections are categorized as "acute necrotic" or "walled off" and can be sterile or infected. Imaging, primarily computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, plays an essential role in the diagnosis of necrotizing pancreatitis and the identification of complications, including infection, bowel and biliary obstruction, hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm formation, and venous thrombosis. Imaging is also used to help triage patients and guide both temporizing and definitive management. A "step-up" method for the management of necrotizing pancreatitis that makes use of imaging-guided percutaneous catheter drainage of fluid collections prior to endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. The authors present an algorithmic approach to the care of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and review the use of imaging and interventional techniques in the diagnosis and management of this pathologic condition.

Percutaneous debridement of posttraumatic infected major hepatic necrosis

Although percutaneous drainage of liver abscesses has long been the standard of care, percutaneous drainage of infected necrotic liver tissue is usually used only to stabilize a patient's condition in the setting of sepsis before surgical debridement is ultimately required, frequently in the form of a hepatic lobectomy. The present report describes three cases of curative percutaneous drainage and percutaneous debridement of posttraumatic infected major hepatic necrosis. Techniques used included catheter suction, lavage, and foreign body retrieval.

Disconnected Pancreatic Duct Syndrome: Endoscopic Stent or Surgeon's Knife?

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome is a sequela of necrotizing pancreatitis or pancreatic trauma in which necrosis of a segment of the pancreas leads to lack of continuity between viable secreting pancreatic tissue (eg, body or tail) and the gastrointestinal tract. The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography showing total cutoff of the pancreatic duct along with an enhancing distal pancreas on contrast-enhanced computed tomography remains the criterion standard for diagnosis. Recently, the evolving literature supports a role for magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography, especially with secretin stimulation. A multidisciplinary approach is extremely important in the management of this condition. Conservative measures are usually not helpful, and interventional radiology, endoscopic, or surgical intervention is almost always needed for management of these patients. Recently, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage procedures in conjunction with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-assisted pancreatic duct stenting have emerged as a novel technique to manage this condition. The aim of this review was to give a detailed overview about the diagnosis and management of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome with emphasis on the changing paradigm in endoscopic and surgical management.

Dual-modality drainage of infected and symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis: long-term clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Management options for symptomatic and infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) have evolved over the past decade from open surgical necrosectomy to more minimally invasive approaches. We reported the use of a combined percutaneous and endoscopic approach (dual modality drainage [DMD]) for the treatment of symptomatic and infected WOPN, with good short-term outcomes in a small cohort of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the long-term outcomes of 117 patients with symptomatic and infected WOPN treated by DMD.

DESIGN

Review of a prospective, internal review board-approved database.

SETTING

Single, North American, tertiary-care center.

PATIENTS

All patients with symptomatic and infected WOPN treated by DMD at our institution between 2007 and 2012.

INTERVENTION

DMD of symptomatic and infected WOPN.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Disease-related mortality, pancreaticocutaneous fistula formation, need for early and late surgical intervention, procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients underwent DMD for symptomatic and infected WOPN. A total of 103 have completed treatment, with all percutaneous drains removed. Ten patients are still undergoing treatment, and 4 patients died with percutaneous drains in place (3.4% disease-related mortality). For the patients completing therapy, the median duration of follow-up was 749.5 days. No patients required surgical necrosectomy or surgical treatment of DMD-related adverse events; 3 patients required late surgery for pain (n = 2) and gastric outlet obstruction (n = 1). There were no procedure-related deaths. In patients who have completed treatment, percutaneous drains have been removed in 100%; no patients have developed pancreaticocutaneous fistulas.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center design, lack of a comparison group.

CONCLUSION

DMD for symptomatic and infected WOPN results in favorable clinical outcomes; complete avoidance of pancreaticocutaneous fistulae, surgical necrosectomy, and major procedure-related adverse events, while maintaining single-digit disease-related mortality.

Endoscopic therapy of necrotizing pancreatitis and pseudocysts

Endoscopic therapy has become an essential component in the management of postpancreatitis complications, such as infected and/or symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis. However, although there have been 2 recent randomized, controlled trials performed, a general lack of comparative effectiveness data regarding the timing, indications, and outcomes of these procedures has been a barrier to the development of practice standards for therapeutic endoscopists managing these issues. This article reviews the available data and expert consensus regarding indications for endoscopic intervention, timing of procedures, endoscopic technique, periprocedural considerations, and complications.

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: an overview of current approaches

The management of necrotizing pancreatitis has undergone a paradigm shift toward minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy, obviating the need for open necrosectomy in most cases. There is increasing evidence that minimally invasive approaches including a step-up approach that incorporates percutaneous catheter or endoscopic transluminal drainage, followed by video-assisted retroperitoneal or endoscopic debridement are associated with improved outcomes over traditional open necrosectomy for patients with infected necrosis. A recent international multidisciplinary consensus conference emphasized the superiority of minimally invasive approaches over standard surgical approaches. The success of these techniques depends on concerted efforts of a multidisciplinary team of interventional endoscopists, radiologists, intensivists and surgeons dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications. This review provides an overview of minimally invasive techniques for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, including indications, timing, advantages and disadvantages.

Minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic necrosis

AIM: To systematically review these minimally invasive approaches to infected pancreatic necrosis.

METHODS: We used the MEDLINE database to investigate studies between 1996 and 2010 with greater than 10 patients that examined these techniques. Using a combination of Boolean operators, reports were retrieved addressing percutaneous therapy (341 studies), endoscopic necrosectomy (574 studies), laparoscopic necrosectomy via a transperitoneal approach (148 studies), and retroperitoneal necrosectomy (194 studies). Only cohorts with at least 10 or more patients were included. Non-English papers, letters, animal studies, duplicate series and reviews without original data were excluded, leaving a total of 27 studies for analysis.

RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 947 patients total were examined (eight studies on percutaneous approach; ten studies on endoscopic necrosectomy; two studies on laparoscopic necrosectomy via a transperitoneal approach; five studies on retroperitoneal necrosectomy; and two studies on a combined percutaneous-retroperitoneal approach). Success rate, complications, mortality, and number of procedures were outcomes that were included in the review. We found that most published reports were retrospective in nature, and thus, susceptible to selection and publication bias. Few reports examined these techniques in a comparative, prospective manner.

CONCLUSION: Each minimally invasive approach though was found to be safe and feasible in multiple reports. With these new techniques, treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis remains a challenge. We advocate a multidisciplinary approach to this complex problem with treatment individualized to each patient.

An update on minimally invasive therapies for pancreatic necrosis

Pancreatic necrosis is a local complication of severe acute pancreatitis associated with multiple organ dysfunction, infection and increased mortality. While surgery is the mainstay for invasive management, studies have demonstrated that delaying necrosectomy translates to improved patient outcomes. Minimally invasive therapies have been described both for early and late management of necrotic pancreatic collections and fall into three broad categories: endoscopic, radiology assisted percutaneous drainage and laparoscopic or retroperitoneal surgical techniques. Such interventions may serve as temporizing measures delaying necrosectomy, but more importantly, as best demonstrated in recent randomized controlled trials, can serve as alternative approaches resulting in improved patient outcomes. Access to these techniques is based on their availability at expert centers. Minimally invasive therapies have increased in popularity, with a general consensus among experts being that reduced complications and mortality rates are realized by approaches other than open necrosectomy. However, additional well-designed, randomized trials are needed.

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: summary of a multidisciplinary consensus conference

Pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis may result in significant morbidity and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis. Many recommendations have been made for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, but no published guidelines have incorporated the many recent developments in minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy. Hence, a multidisciplinary conference was convened to develop a consensus on interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. Participants included most international experts from multiple disciplines. The evidence for efficacy of interventions was reviewed, presentations were given by experts, and a consensus was reached on each topic. In summary, intervention is primarily indicated for infected necrosis, less often for symptomatic sterile necrosis, and should ideally be delayed as long as possible, preferably 4 weeks or longer after the onset of disease, for better demarcation and liquefaction of the necrosis. Both the step-up approach using percutaneous drainage followed by minimally invasive video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement and per-oral endoscopic necrosectomy have been shown to have superior outcomes to traditional open necrosectomy with respect to short-term and long-term morbidity and are emerging as treatments of choice. Applicability of these techniques depends on the availability of specialized expertise and a multidisciplinary team dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications.

Resolving external pancreatic fistulas in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: using rendezvous techniques to avoid surgery (with video)

BACKGROUND

An external pancreatic fistula (EPF) generally results from an iatrogenic manipulation of a pancreatic fluid collection (PFC), such as walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Severe necrotizing pancreatitis can lead to complete duct disruption, causing disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) with viable upstream pancreas draining out of a low-pressure fistula created surgically or by a percutaneous catheter. The EPF can persist for months to years, and distal pancreatectomy, often the only permanent solution, carries a high morbidity and defined mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To describe 3 endoscopic and percutaneous rendezvous techniques to completely resolve EPFs in the setting of DPDS.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a prospective database of 15 patients who underwent rendezvous internalization of EPFs.

SETTING

Tertiary-care pancreatic referral center.

PATIENTS

Fifteen patients between October 2002 and October 2011 with EPFs in the setting of DPDS and resolved WOPN.

INTERVENTION

Three rendezvous techniques that combined endoscopic and percutaneous procedures to internalize EPFs by transgastric, transduodenal, or transpapillary methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

EPF resolution and morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (12 men) with a median age of 51 years (range 24-65 years) with EPFs and DPDS (cutoff/blowout of pancreatic duct, with inability to demonstrate upstream body/tail of pancreas on pancreatogram) resulting from severe necrotizing pancreatitis underwent 1 of 3 rendezvous procedures to eliminate the EPFs. All patients were either poor surgical candidates or refused surgery. At the time of the rendezvous procedure, WOPN had fully resolved, DPDS was confirmed on pancreatography, and the EPF had persisted for a median of 5 months (range 1-48 months), producing a median output of 200 mL/day (range 50-700 mL/day). The rendezvous technique in 10 patients used the existing percutaneous drainage fistula to puncture into the stomach/duodenum to deliver wires that were captured endoscopically. The transenteric fistula was dilated and two endoprostheses placed into the lesser sac. A second technique was used in 3 patients where EUS was used to avoid large varices and create a fistula to the percutaneous drainage catheter. Wires were delivered transenterally then grasped by an interventional radiologist. The new fistula was dilated, and, again, two endoprostheses were placed. Two patients underwent a rendezvous technique that resulted in transpapillary stents and removal of percutaneous catheters. The median duration to EPF closure was 7 days (range 1-73 days) during a median follow-up of 25 months (range 6-113 months). No EPF has recurred in any patient, although 3 symptomatic fluid collections have occurred. These collections have been successfully treated with combined percutaneous and endoscopic treatment or endoscopic treatment alone. One patient had postprocedural fever. There were no associated deaths.

LIMITATIONS

Small, selected group of patients without a comparative group.

CONCLUSION

The management of EPFs in the setting of DPDS is challenging but can be treated effectively by combined endoscopic and percutaneous rendezvous techniques. The rendezvous procedures were associated with minimal morbidity, no mortality, avoidance of surgery, and complete elimination of the EPFs.

Endoscopic necrosectomy for walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Approximately 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis develop pancreatic necrosis with significant mortality. Surgical debridement is the traditional management of necrotizing pancreatitis, but it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic necrosectomy using repeats session of debridement and stent insertion has been more frequently used within the last decade and half. This technique continues to evolve as we attempt to optimize the post-procedural outcomes.

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.

The minimally invasive approach to surgical management of pancreatic diseases

Laparoscopic pancreas surgery has undergone rapid development over the past decade. Although acceptability among traditional surgeons has been low, emerging specialty centers are reporting excellent outcomes for advanced and complex operations, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. A note of caution is necessary: These outstanding results are from skilled surgeons, many of whom are pioneers in the field, who have overcome the learning curve over many years of innovation. As the procedures gain wider practice, outcomes need to be carefully watched because many of these procedures are extremely demanding technically. Although many have suggested that controlled, randomized studies comparing laparoscopic pancreatic resections with open resections are necessary to establish the efficacy of laparoscopic procedure, the cumulative data on the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure argues against such an approach. The logistic difficulties of conducting such studies will be considerable given patient preferences, the need for multicenter studies, and the rapid adoption of the laparoscopic procedure among experienced pancreatic surgeons. A more reasonable approach to truly evaluate the safety of these procedures is the establishment of a national registry that can measure progress of the field and record outcomes in the wider, nonspecialty community. Hepatobiliary training programs should also establish a minimal standard of training for many of the advanced procedures, such as the pancreaticoduodenectomy, so that the benefit of laparoscopic surgery can be made available outside of just a few specialty centers.

Introduction: SSAT/AGA/ASGE State-of-the-Art Conference: necrotizing pancreatitis: novel minimally invasive strategies

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis is the most severe end of the spectrum of acute pancreatitis. Interventional treatment (i.e., "who, when, and how") of necrotizing pancreatitis is an ongoing source of considerable controversy. Novel minimally invasive strategies are being increasingly employed to perform pancreatic necrosectomy.

METHODS

The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recently convened a State-of-the-Art Conference to analyze the experience and evidence that these minimally invasive treatments are beneficial in select patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

This article serves as a general introduction to the State-of-the-Art Conference, Necrotizing Pancreatitis: Novel Minimally Invasive Strategies.

Interventional radiology for necrotizing pancreatitis

Necrotic pancreatitis is a complex clinical entity that requires collaboration of care from surgeons, gastroenterologists, and interventional radiologists. CT scans play a pivotal role in the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis, while image-guided percutaneous pancreatic drainage is a safe and effective treatment method in certain cases. The diagnostic criteria for pancreatic necrosis, indications for pancreatic drainage, technique, and efficacy are discussed in this article.

Percutaneous lavage as primary treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

The classic treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is surgical debridement and drainage. This study reviews our experience with nonoperative percutaneous catheter drainage and serial lavage as primary treatment in patients with IPN.

STUDY DESIGN

Between 1993 and 2009, a prospective nonselected series of 63 consecutive patients with microbiologically confirmed IPN were enrolled with the intent of treating them nonoperatively, and they were retrospectively analyzed. Catheters were placed percutaneously in the interventional radiology (IR) suite, and were used to lavage and debride the necrosis 1-3 times per week. The lavages continued on an outpatient basis by IR, and the catheters were removed with disease resolution.

RESULTS

One patient rapidly became unstable and had to be taken primarily for open debridement. In the remaining 62 patients, 57 survived, for an overall mortality rate of 8%. Fifty patients were treated solely with percutaneous lavage, and 47 survived. Mean hospital length of stay was 61 days, ranging from 6 to 190 days. Mean length of outpatient treatment was 42 days, ranging from 3 to 180 days. Mean number of lavages was 21, ranging from 11 to 75. Eleven patients (18%) deteriorated during percutaneous treatment and required laparotomy, and 9 of these survived. One patient treated percutaneously resolved his sepsis but had a persistent pancreatic fistula and was managed with pancreaticojejunostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous catheter drainage and serial lavage are an effective alternative to open surgical debridement in patients with IPN. Overall survival is excellent, and most patients avoid the morbidity of open debridement. A minority of patients deteriorate, but most of those can be salvaged with open drainage.

Step-up approach to infected necrotising pancreatitis: a 20-year experience of percutaneous drainage in a single centre

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of step-up approach to infected necrotising pancreatitis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 86 patients treated by step-up approach from 1989 to 2009. Infection was confirmed by examination of aspirated material or by presence of free pancreatic gas at contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Conservative treatment was initially attempted in all patients; percutaneous catheter drainage was performed when conservative therapy failed; surgery was planned only if no clinical improvement was observed. Primary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (17.4%) were successfully treated with conservative treatment only. Percutaneous catheter drainage was performed in 69 (80.2%). Eight patients (9.3%) died, two at week 1 without drainage or surgery and six after percutaneous catheter drainage and surgery. Eleven patients were converted to surgery (12.8%). Organ failure occurred in 59/86 (68.6%) and multiorgan failure in 25/86 (29.1%). Median (interquartile ranges) hospital stay and catheter dwell times were 13 (9-47) and 15 (7-34) days, respectively. There were 2.61 catheter problems and 1.68 catheter changes per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The step-up approach is an effective and safe strategy for the treatment of infected necrotising pancreatitis. Percutaneous drainage can avert the need for surgery in the majority of patients.

Acute pancreatitis with an emphasis on infection

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disease that is mild and self-limiting in about 80% of cases. However, severe necrotizing disease still has a mortality of up to 30%. Differentiated multimodal treatment concepts are needed for these patients, including a multidisciplinary team (intensivists, gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and surgeons). The primary therapy is supportive. Patients with infected pancreatic necrosis who are septic undergo interventional or surgical treatment, ideally not before the fourth week after onset of symptoms. This article reviews the pathophysiologic mechanisms of acute pancreatitis and describes clinical pathways for diagnosis and management based on the current literature and guidelines.

Systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment for necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The role of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in patients with (infected) necrotizing pancreatitis was evaluated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Inclusion criteria were: consecutive cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis undergoing PCD as primary treatment for peripancreatic collections; indication for PCD either (suspected) infected necrosis or symptomatic sterile pancreatic necrosis; and outcomes reported to include percentage of infected peripancreatic collections, need for additional surgical necrosectomy, complications and deaths. Exclusion criteria were: cohort of fewer than five patients; cohort included patients with chronic pancreatitis; selected subgroup of patients with acute pancreatitis studied, such as those with pseudocysts, pancreatic abscesses and/or exclusively sterile pancreatic necrosis; and cohort in which PCD was combined with another minimally invasive strategy and results for PCD alone not reported separately.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, including 384 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial; most others were retrospective case series. Four studies reported on the presence of organ failure before PCD; this occurred in 67·2 per cent of 116 patients. Infected necrosis was proven in 271 (70·6 per cent) of 384 patients. No additional surgical necrosectomy was required after PCD in 214 (55·7 per cent) of 384 patients. Complications consisted mostly of internal and external pancreatic fistulas. The overall mortality rate was 17·4 per cent (67 of 384 patients). Nine of 11 studies reported mortality separately for patients with infected necrosis undergoing PCD; the mortality rate in this group was 15·4 per cent (27 of 175).

CONCLUSION

A considerable number of patients can be treated with PCD without the need for surgical necrosectomy.

Endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis reduces hospital stay and radiographic resources

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), a complication of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), can become infected, obstruct adjacent structures, and result in clinical deterioration of patients. Patients with WOPN have prolonged hospitalizations, needing multiple radiologic and medical interventions. We compared an established treatment of WOPN, standard percutaneous drainage (SPD), with combined modality therapy (CMT), in which endoscopic transenteric stents were added to a regimen of percutaneous drains.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients with WOPN between January 2006 and August 2009 were treated with SPD (n = 43, 28 male) or CMT (n = 23, 17 male) and compared by disease severity, length of hospitalization, duration of drainage, complications, and number of radiologic and endoscopic procedures.

RESULTS

Patient age (59 vs 54 years), sex (77% vs 58% male), computed tomography severity index (8.0 vs 7.2), number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (2.0 vs 2.6), and percentage with disconnected pancreatic ducts (50% vs 46%) were equivalent in the CMT and SPD arms, respectively. Patients undergoing CMT had significantly decreased length of hospitalization (26 vs 55 days, P < .0026), duration of external drainage (83.9 vs 189 days, P < .002), number of computed tomography scans (8.95 vs 14.3, P < .002), and drain studies (6.5 vs 13, P < .0001). Patients in the SPD arm had more complications.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with symptomatic WOPN, CMT provided a more effective and safer management technique, resulting in shorter hospitalizations and fewer radiologic procedures than SPD.

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.

Minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy: improvement in morbidity and mortality with a less invasive approach

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (MARPN) versus open necrosectomy in the treatment of infected or nonresolving pancreatic necrosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Infected pancreatic necrosis may lead to progressive organ failure and death. Minimal access techniques have been developed in an attempt to reduce the high mortality of open necrosectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis on a prospective data base comprising 189 consecutive patients undergoing MARPN or open necrosectomy (August 1997 to September 2008). Outcome measures included total and postoperative ICU and hospital stays, organ dysfunction, complications and mortality using an intention to treat analysis.

RESULTS

Overall 137 patients underwent MARPN versus open necrosectomy in 52. Median (range) age of the patients was 57.5 (18-85) years; 118 (62%) were male. A total of 131 (69%) patients were tertiary referrals, with a median time to transfer from index hospital of 19 (2-76) days. Etiology was gallstones or alcohol in 129 cases (68%); 98 of 168 (58%) patients had a positive culture at the first procedure. Of the 137 patients, 34 (31%) had postoperative organ failure in the MARPN group, and 39 of 52 (56%) in the open group (P<0.0001); 59/137 (43%) versus 40/52 (77%), respectively, required postoperative ICU support (P<0.0001). Of the 137 patients 75 (55%) had complications in the MARPN group and 42 of 52 (81%) in the open group (P=0.001). There were 26 (19%) deaths in the MARPN group and 20 (38%) following open procedure (P=0.009). Age (P<0.0001), preoperative multiorgan failure (P<0.0001), and surgical procedure (MARPN, P=0.016) were independent predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown significant benefits for a minimal access approach including fewer complications and deaths compared with open necrosectomy.

Combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of organized pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Severe acute pancreatitis is often complicated by organized necrosis, which can lead to abscess formation and clinical deterioration. We sought to devise a combined endoscopic and percutaneous approach to drainage of organized pancreatic necrosis, with the primary goal of preventing the formation of chronic pancreaticocutaneous fistulae, and secondary goals of avoiding the need for surgical necrosectomy and reducing endoscopic resource utilization.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of an institutional review board-approved database.

SETTING

Single North American tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients with severe acute pancreatitis complicated by organized necrosis requiring drainage.

INTERVENTIONS

CT-guided percutaneous drain, followed immediately by endoscopic transenteric drainage.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Development of chronic pancreaticocutaneous fistulae, number of endoscopic procedures requiring follow-up drainage, need for surgical necrosectomy, procedure-related morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (12 males, 3 females; mean age, 58 years) underwent combined modality drainage. All procedures were technically successful. Immediate complications included fever and hypotension (n = 2); late complications included parenchymal infection after drain removal (n = 1). Twenty-five total endoscopies (4 for drain manipulation) were performed in the cohort subsequent to the initial drainage. After a median duration of follow-up of 189 days, percutaneous drains were removed in all 13 patients in whom this was attempted; no patients had development of chronic pancreaticocutaneous fistulae. There were no deaths, and no patients required surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Highly selected patient population, lack of comparison group, single-center experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In some highly selected patients with infected or symptomatic organized pancreatic necrosis, combined modality drainage results in favorable clinical outcomes with low associated, procedure-related morbidity. Pancreaticocutaneous fistulae and surgical necrosectomy were avoided with minimal endoscopic resource utilization.

Percutaneous "stepped" drainage technique for infected pancreatic necrosis

INTRODUCTION

Aggressive surgical pancreatic debridement remains the standard of care, may require multiple abdominal explorations and is associated with high mortality. We have introduced the stepped technique of percutaneous treatment of infected peripancreatic fluid collections.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with severe infected necrotizing pancreatitis who were managed percutaneously. Culture results, number of radiological interventions, length of stay, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 8 patients with a median number of Ranson's criteria of 4.5. Sixty invasive procedures were performed. A median number of two separate catheter sites per patient were necessary for the removal of necrotic material. Median duration of percutaneous intervention was 71.5 days with complete removal of necrotic material and resolution of infected collections in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons and interventional radiologists should be familiar with this evolving technique which is less invasive then surgery, but may prolong the time necessary for complete resolution.

Minimally invasive techniques in pancreatic necrosis

Traditional open surgical necrosectomy for treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis is associated with high morbidity and mortality, leading to a shift toward minimally invasive endoscopic, radiologic, and laparoscopic approaches. Percutaneous drainage is useful as a temporizing method to control sepsis and as an adjunctive treatment to surgical intervention. It is limited because of the requirement for frequent catheter care and the need for repeated procedures. Endoscopic transgastric or transduodenal therapies with endoscopic debridement/necrosectomy have recently been described and are highly successful in carefully selected patients. It avoids the need for open necrosectomy and can be used in poor operative candidates. Laparoscopic necrosectomy is also promising for treatment of pancreatic necrosis. However, the need for inducing a pneumoperitoneum and the potential risk of infection limit its usefulness in patients with critical illness. Retroperitoneal access with a nephroscope is used to directly approach the necrosis with complete removal of a sequestrum. Retroperitoneal drainage using the delay-until-liquefaction strategy also appears to be successful to treat pancreatic necrosis. The anatomic location of the necrosis, clinical comorbidities, and operator experience determine the best approach for a particular patient. Tertiary care centers with sufficient expertise are increasingly using minimally invasive procedures to manage pancreatic necrosis.

Acute pancreatitis at the beginning of the 21st century: the state of the art

Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory disease of the pancreas which can lead to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome with significant morbidity and mortality in 20% of patients. Gallstones and alcohol consumption are the most frequent causes of pancreatitis in adults. The treatment of mild acute pancreatitis is conservative and supportive; however severe episodes characterized by necrosis of the pancreatic tissue may require surgical intervention. Advanced understanding of the pathology, and increased interest in assessment of disease severity are the cornerstones of future management strategies of this complex and heterogeneous disease in the 21st century.

Acute pancreatitis at the beginning of the 21st century: The state of the art

Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory disease of the pancreas which can lead to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome with significant morbidity and mortality in 20% of patients. Gallstones and alcohol consumption are the most frequent causes of pancreatitis in adults. The treatment of mild acute pancreatitis is conservative and supportive; however severe episodes characterized by necrosis of the pancreatic tissue may require surgical intervention. Advanced understanding of the pathology, and increased interest in assessment of disease severity are the cornerstones of future management strategies of this complex and heterogeneous disease in the 21st century.

Critical Care of the Patient with Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory process of the pancreas with variable involvement of regional tissues and remote organs. This review gives a comprehensive overview of the aetiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and therapy of acute pancreatitis relevant to the intensivist. Recent international guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis are summarised.

Eighty percent of acute pancreatitis episodes are related either to gallstones or to alcohol abuse. Independent of its aetiology, the pathophysiologic hallmark of acute pancreatitis is the premature activation of trypsin, which leads to massive pancreas inflammation, systemic overproduction of pro-inflammatory mediators and ultimately remote organ dysfunction. All guidelines agree that the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis should include clinical symptoms, increased serum amylase or lipase levels and/or characteristic findings on computed tomography. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is recommended as a causative therapy in patients with acute cholangitis or a strong suspicion of gallstones. All guidelines underline the importance of vigorous fluid resuscitation and supplemental oxygen therapy and prefer enteral over parenteral nutrition, with the majority favouring the nasojejunal route. In view of lacking scientific evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection of pancreatic necroses is discouraged by most guidelines. Computed tomography-guided fine needle aspiration is the technique of choice to differentiate between sterile and infected pancreas necrosis. While sterile pancreatic necrosis should be managed conservatively, infected pancreatic necrosis requires debridement and drainage supplemented by antibiotic therapy. Surgical necrosectomy is the traditional approach, but less invasive techniques (retroperitoneal or laparoscopic necrosectomy, computed tomography-guided percutaneous catheter drainage) may be equally effective.

CT findings of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN): differentiation from pseudocyst and prediction of outcome after endoscopic therapy

Computed tomography (CT) findings that may differentiate walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) from pancreatic pseudocyst were investigated. CT examinations performed before endoscopic therapy of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) in 73 patients (45 WOPN, 28 pseudocysts) were evaluated retrospectively by two radiologists. PFC was evaluated for size, extension to paracolic space, characteristics of wall and internal structure. The pancreas was evaluated for deformity or discontinuity, and pancreatic duct dilation. CT findings that were associated with WOPN or pseudocyst were identified. CT score (number of CT findings associated with WOPN minus number of findings associated with pseudocyst) was calculated for each PFC. PFC was categorized as WOPN or pseudocyst using a CT score threshold. Larger size, extension to paracolic space, irregular wall definition, presence of fat attenuation debris in PFC, pancreatic deformity or discontinuity (P < 0.05-0.0001) were findings associated with WOPN. Presence of pancreatic duct dilation was associated with pseudocyst. Using a CT score of 2 or higher as a threshold, CT differentiated WOPN from pseudocyst with an accuracy of 79.5-83.6%. Thus, CT can differentiate WOPN from pseudocysts.

Intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis: an evidence-based review of surgical and percutaneous alternatives

Interventional therapy in necrotizing pancreatitis is evolving. Efforts to modify or prevent pancreatic necrosis by intra-arterial infusion of antibiotics and antiproteases have been described. Moreover, traditional approaches to the surgical management of infected pancreatic necrosis are being challenged by a host of endoscopic and percutaneous techniques. While these approaches are potentially valuable additions to interventional therapy in necrotizing pancreatitis, few evidence-based studies are available to support their supplanting more traditional approaches at this time. Cooperative evidence-based multiinstitutional studies will be required to address the validity of these proposals.

Percutaneous necrosectomy in patients with acute, necrotizing pancreatitis

The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis treated by active percutaneous necrosectomy. By searching the radiological, surgical and internal medicine databases, all patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis treated by active percutaneous necrosectomy between 1992 and 2004 were identified. Demographic, laboratory, and clinical data, and details about invasive procedures were collected by reviewing patient charts, radiological and surgical reports. The computed tomography severity index (CTSI) scores were determined by reviewing CT images. Eighteen patients were identified. Median Ranson score on admission was 2. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was median 22. Median CTSI score was 7. Initially all patients were treated with CT-guided drainage placement. Because passive drainage proved not to be effective, subsequent minimally invasive, percutaneous necrosectomy was performed. Eight out of 18 patients recovered fully without the need for surgery. Ten of 18 patients required additional surgical necrosectomy. For one of ten patients, percutaneous necrosectomy allowed postponing surgery by 39 days. Four of ten surgically treated patients died: three from septic multiorgan failure, one from pulmonary embolism. Percutaneous minimally invasive necrosectomy can be regarded as a safe and effective complementary treatment modality in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. It is suitable for a subset of patients to avoid or delay surgery.

Outcome of patients with acute, necrotizing pancreatitis requiring drainage-does drainage size matter?

AIM: To assess the outcome of patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis treated by percutaneous drainage with special focus on the influence of drainage size and number.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 80 patients with acute pancreatitis requiring percutaneous drainage therapy for infected necroses. Endpoints were mortality and length of hospital stay. The influence of drainage characteristics such as the median drainage size, the largest drainage size per patient and the total drainage plane per patient on patient outcome was evaluated.

RESULTS: Total hospital survival was 66%. Thirty-four patients out of all 80 patients (43%) survived acute necrotizing pancreatitis with percutaneous drainage therapy only. Eighteen patients out of all 80 patients needed additional percutaneous necrosectomy (23%). Ten out of these patients required surgical necrosectomy in addition, 6 patients received open necrosectomy without prior percutaneous necrosectomy. Elective surgery was performed in 3 patients receiving cholecystectomy and one patient receiving resection of the parathyroid gland. The number of drainages ranged from one to fourteen per patient. The drainage diameter ranged from 8 French catheters to 24 French catheters. The median drainage size as well as the largest drainage size used per patient and the total drainage area used per patient did not show statistically significant influence on mortality.

CONCLUSION: Percutaneous drainage therapy is an effective tool for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. Large bore drainages did not prove to be more effective in controlling the septic focus.

Management of severe pancreatic necrosis

Pancreatic necrosis is a form of severe pancreatitis associated with high morbidity and mortality. In this condition there is necrosis of pancreatic tissue with pancreatic duct disruption leading to release and activation of pancreatic enzymes. This in turn causes peripancreatic necrosis and formation of fluid collections. The diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis is made by contrast-enhanced CT scan of the abdomen. The management of pancreatic necrosis is controversial. No randomized clinical trials are available for guidance in treatment of pancreatic necrosis. Experience, collaboration, and knowledge of the managing teams play a major role in successful treatment. Early percutaneous drainage with frequent monitoring of the catheters is the hallmark of our approach. Using this approach, it is possible to significantly decrease the rate of morbidity and mortality associated with this disease and its treatment.

The role of percutaneous external drainage in the treatment of fluid collections associated with severe acute pancreatitis. What, when and how to drain?

A súlyos akut pancreatitist kísérő folyadékgyülem-képződéssel járó lokális szövődmények perkután drenázskezelése, főleg steril esetekben, nem széles körben alkalmazott eljárás. Jelen közlemény célja a perkután drenázs indikációjának, technikájának, korlátjainak és eredményének elemzése az irodalom alapján. A perkután drenázskezelés a súlyos akut pancreatitist kísérő akut folyadékgyülem, az akut pseudocysta és a hasnyálmirigytályog, valamint az elfolyósodott nekrózis kezelésében jelentős szerepet játszik. A fertőzött folyadékgyülemek kezelésére a perkután drenázs mint első kezelés ajánlható. A steril akut folyadékgyülem és pseudocysta kezelésében a drenázskezelés, a sterilitás szabályainak fokozott betartása mellett, a iatrogén fertőzés relatív gyakorisága miatt csak komoly panaszokat okozó esetekben ajánlott. Az elfolyósodott steril és szeptikus nekrózis kezelésében a legjobb eredménnyel a 20–30F vastagságú katéterekkel végzett drenázskezelés, a „sinus tract endoscopy” és a laparoszkóppal asszisztált necrectomia kecsegtet. Az esetek több mint 25%-ában a drenázs a konzervatív kezelés mellett a beteg végleges gyógyulásához vezet. Más esetekben a műtét időpontjának prolongálására, a „korai” műtét elkerülésére hasznos eljárás.