Retroperitoneoscopic Anatomical Necrosectomy

Comparison of safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up between “one-step” and “step-up” approaches for infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Although the “Step-up” strategy is the primary surgical treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis, it is not suitable for all such patients. The “One-step” strategy represents a novel treatment, but the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up have not yet been compared between these two approaches.

AIM

To compare the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up of two surgical approaches to provide a reference for infected pancreatic necrosis treatment.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of infectious pancreatic necrosis patients who underwent “One-step” or “Step-up” necrosectomy at Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, from May 2014 to December 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of severe complications or death. Patients were followed up every 6 mo after discharge until death or June 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0 and GraphPad Prism 8.0, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-fifty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 61 patients underwent “One-step” necrosectomy and 97 patients underwent “Step-up” necrosectomy. During the long-term follow-up period, 40 patients in the “One-step” group and 63 patients in the “Step-up” group survived. The time from disease onset to hospital admission (53.69 ± 38.14 vs 32.20 ± 20.75, P < 0.001) and to initial surgical treatment was longer in the “Step-up” than in the “One-step” group (54.38 ± 10.46 vs 76.58 ± 17.03, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent “Step-up” necrosectomy had a longer hospitalization duration (65.41 ± 28.14 vs 52.76 ± 24.71, P = 0.02), and more interventions (4.26 ± 1.71 vs 3.18 ± 1.39, P < 0.001). Postoperative inflammatory indicator levels were significantly lower than preoperative levels in each group. Although the incisional hernia incidence was higher in the “One-step” group, no significant difference was found in the composite outcomes of severe complications or death, new-onset organ failure, postoperative complications, inflammatory indicators, long-term complications, quality of life, and medical costs between the groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the “Step-up” approach, the “One-step” approach is a safe and effective treatment method with better long-term quality of life and prognosis. It also provides an alternative surgical treatment strategy for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Preliminary clinical experience with robotic retroperitoneoscopic pancreatic surgery

Backgrounds

Retroperitoneoscopic surgery has shown advantages in urological surgery. However, its application in pancreatic surgery for neoplasm is rare. Robotic surgical system with its magnified view and flexible instruments may provide a superior alternative to conventional laparoscopic system in retroperitoneoscopic surgery. We aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes in a series of patients treated by robotic retroperitoneoscopic pancreatic surgery.

Case presentation

Between March 2016 and May 2016, four patients with solitary pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms were treated with robotic retroperitoneoscopic surgery. Prospective collected clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. Three patients underwent distal pancreatectomy (one combined with resection of left adrenal adenoma), and one patient enucleation. The mean operative time was 80 min (range 30–110 min). The estimated blood loss was insignificant. There was no conversion to open procedure. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 5.25 days (range 4–6 days). The mean tumor size was 1.375 cm (range 1.0–1.8 cm) in diameter. All patients’ blood glucose level returned to normal range within 1 week postoperatively. Two patients had pancreatic biochemical leak. No patients underwent subsequent treatment, and no recurrence occurred during the 12-month follow-up period.

Conclusions

This study preliminarily indicates that robotic retroperitoneoscopic pancreatic surgery is safe and feasible for neoplasms in the dorsal portion of distal pancreas in selected patients, with some potential advantages of straightforward access, simple and fine manipulation, short operative time, and fast recovery.

Step-up mini-invasive surgery for infected pancreatic necrosis: Results from prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical efficacy and success predictors of mini-invasive techniques in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN).

METHODS

IPN patients admitted to our clinic for treatment by mini-invasive techniques were included in this study prospectively. Treatment was divided into four sequential phases: percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD), mini-incision drainage (MID), video assisted debridement (VAD) and open surgery. Patients progressed to next phase if the infection cannot be controlled. The frequency of surgery, treatment duration, cure rate, incidence of complication and overall mortality were recorded. Risk factors for failure of PCD and MID procedures were detected by logistic regression including demographics, disease severity and morphologic characteristics.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to March 2015, a total of 54 consecutive IPN patients were treated, with an average age of 51.2 ± 3.1 years. Of the 54 cases, 18 (33.3%) were cured after PCD; 13 (24.1%) with uncontrolled infection were cured after MID; and the remaining 19 cases (35.2%) were cured after VAD. No open surgery was performed. Overall mortality was 7.4% (4/54), and the incidence of complications was 12.9% (7/54). In multivariable regression, the following factors were associated with high failure rate for both PCD and MID: heterogeneous fluid collection (odds ratio (OR) = 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32 ～ 4.25, P = 0.001 for PCD; OR = 2.99; 95% CI: 1.52 ～ 5.10, P = 0.006 for MID), multiple infected collections (OR = 4.51; 95% CI: 2.94 ～ 8.63; P = 0.000 for PCD; OR = 4.17; 95% CI: 2.77 ～ 8.12, P = 0.000 for MID), CT severity index (0 ～ 3/4 ～ 6/7 ～ 10: OR = 2.16; 95% CI: 1.83 ～ 3.62, P = 0.031 for PCD; OR = 2.72; 95% CI: 1.78 ～ 4.10, P = 0.005 for MID).

CONCLUSIONS

Step-up mini-invasive techniques can be considered a first choice in the treatment of IPN. CT is effective to predict success of PCD and MID.