Laparoscopic-Assisted Pancreatic Necrosectomy: Technique and Initial Outcomes

Cross-sectional imaging after pancreatic surgery: The dialogue between the radiologist and the surgeon

Pancreatic surgery is nowadays considered one of the most complex surgical approaches and not unscathed from complications. After the surgical procedure, cross-sectional imaging is considered the non-invasive reference standard to detect early and late compilations, and consequently to address patients to the best management possible. Contras-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) should be considered the most important and useful imaging technique to evaluate the surgical site. Thanks to its speed, contrast, and spatial resolution, it can help reach the final diagnosis with high accuracy. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be considered as a second-line imaging approach, especially for the evaluation of biliary findings and late complications. In both cases, the radiologist should be aware of protocols and what to look at, to create a robust dialogue with the surgeon and outline a fitted treatment for each patient.

Laparoscopic necrosectomy for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: mesocolon-preserving approach and outcomes

The surgical treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis has significantly evolved in recent years with the advent of enhanced imaging techniques and minimally invasive surgery. Various minimally invasive techniques, such as video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) and endoscopic transmural necrosectomy (ETN), have been employed in the management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis and are often part of step-up approaches. However, almost all reported step-up approaches only employ a fixed minimally invasive technique prior to open surgery. In contrast, we implemented different minimally invasive techniques during the treatment of acute pancreatitis based on the extent of pancreatic necrosis. For acute necrotizing pancreatitis of the pancreatic bed with or without extension into the left retroperitoneum, we performed mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy for debridment. The quantitative indication for pancreatic debridment in our institute has been described previously. For acute necrotizing pancreatitis of the pancreatic bed with or without extension into the left retroperitoneum, mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy was performed for debridment. To safeguard the mesocolon, the pancreatic bed was entered via the gastrocolic ligament, and the left retroperitoneum was accessed via the lateral peritoneal attachments of the descending colon. Of the 77 patients requiring pancreatic debridment, 41 patients were deemed suitable for mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy by multiple disciplinary team and informed consent was acquired. Of these 41 patients, 27 underwent percutaneous drainage, 10 underwent transluminal drainage, and 2 underwent transluminal necrosectomy prior to laparoscopic necrosectomy. Two patients (4.88%) died of sepsis, three patients (7.32%) required further laparotomic necrosectomy, and five patients (12.20%) required additional percutaneous drainage for residual infection. Three patients (7.32%) experienced duodenal fistula, all of which were cured through non-surgical treatments. Nineteen patients (46.34%) developed pancreatic fistula that persisted for over 3 weeks, with 17 being successfully treated non-surgically. The remaining two patients had pancreatic fistulas that lasted over 3 months; an internal drainage procedure has been planned for them. No patient developed colonic fistula. Mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy proved to be safe and effective in selected patients. It can serve as a supplementary procedure for step-up approaches or as an alternative to other debridment procedures such as VARD, ETN, and laparotomic necrosectomy.