Laparoscopic necrosectomy in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: Our experience

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.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Pancreatic Necrosectomy: Technique and Initial Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) may result de novo or following procedures such as ERCP or partial pancreatectomy (post-procedural), and may require surgical debridement. Video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) is a standard approach for NP that employs a 5 cm incision with varying degrees of blind and open debridement. We describe our technique and outcomes of a modified VARD called laparoscopic-assisted pancreatic necrosectomy (LAPN) performed through a single 12 mm incision that uses direct laparoscopic visualization during debridement.

METHODS

At one medical center, all LAPN patients (2012-2020) were assessed for demographics, disease factors, and outcomes. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with recovery after LAPN for patients with de novo vs post-procedural necrosum.

RESULTS

Over 9 years, 60 patients underwent LAPN for NP. Median age was 57 years (IQR: 47-66) and 43 (69%) were men. Pancreas necrosum was de novo in 39 (63%) patients and post-procedural in 23 (37%). NP resolved with a median of 1 LAPN procedure and median hospitalization was 33 days. The LAPN major morbidity rate and in-hospital mortality rate were 47% and 5%. No significant differences were seen between NP etiology cohorts, although post-procedure NP patients trended towards a faster clinical recovery to baseline compared to de novo patients (193 vs 394 days; p-value = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

LAPN offers a smaller incision with excellent visualization and non-inferior outcomes, regardless of etiology, with likely faster recovery for patients with post-procedural vs de novo necrotizing pancreatitis.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Moderate to Critical Acute Pancreatitis: A Case-matched Comparison With the Traditional Open Approach Over 10 years

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare short-term and midterm outcomes between patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and patients treated with open necrosectomy (ON).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared data of all patients who had undergone MIS for AP with a similar group of patients with ON patients between January 2012 and June 2021 using a case-matched methodology based on AP severity and patient characteristics. Inhospital and midterm follow-up variables, including quality-of-life assessment, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Starting from a whole series of 79 patients with moderate to critical AP admitted to our referral center, the final study sample consisted of 24 patients (12 MIS and 12 ON). Postoperative (18.7±10.9 vs. 30.3±21.7 d; P =0.05) and overall hospitalization (56.3±17.4 vs. 76.9±39.4 d; P =0.05) were lower in the MIS group. Moreover, the Short-Form 36 scores in the ON group were statistically significantly lower in role limitations because of emotional problems ( P =0.002) and health changes ( P =0.03) at 3 and 6 months and because of emotional problems ( P =0.05), emotional well-being ( P =0.02), and general health ( P =0.007) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for the surgical management of moderate to critical AP seems to be a good option, as it could provide more chances for a better midterm quality of life compared with ON. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infected necrotizing pancreatitis management in an academic setting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Traditional management for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) often utilizes open necrosectomy, which carries high morbidity and complication rates. Thus, minimally invasive strategies have gained favor, specifically step-up approaches utilizing endoscopic or minimally-invasive surgery (MIS); however, the ideal management modality for INP has not been identified.

METHODS

A decision tree model was designed to analyze costs and survival associated with open necrosectomy, endoscopic step-up, and MIS step-up protocols for management of INP after 4 weeks of necrosis development with adequate retroperitoneal access. Costs were based on a third-party payer perspective using Medicare reimbursement rates. The model's effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate results.

RESULTS

Endoscopic step-up was the dominant economic strategy with 7.92 QALYs for $90,864.09. Surgical step-up resulted in a decrease of 0.09 QALYs and a cost increase of $10,067.89 while open necrosectomy resulted in a decrease of 0.4 QALYs and an increased cost of $18,407.52 over endoscopic step-up. In 100,000 random-sampling simulations, 65.5% of simulations favored endoscopic step-up. MIS step-up was favored when MIS acute mortality rates fell and when MIS drainage success rates rose.

CONCLUSIONS

In our simulated patients with INP, the most cost-effective management strategy is endoscopic step-up. Cost-effectiveness varies with changes in acute mortality and drainage success, which will depend on local expertise.

One-step laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy verse surgical step-up approach for infected pancreatic necrosis: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

The surgical step-up approach often requires multiple debridements and might not be suitable for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) patients with various abscesses or no safe route for percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD). This case-control study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of one-step laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy (LPN) in treating IPN.

METHODS

This case-control study included IPN patients undergoing one-step LPN or surgical step-up in our center from January 2015 to December 2020. The short-term and long-term complications after surgery, length of hospital stay, and postoperative ICU stays in both groups were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the risk factors of major complications or death.

RESULTS

A total of 53 IPN patients underwent one-step LPN and 37 IPN patients underwent surgical step-up approach in this study. There was no significant difference in the incidence of death, major complications, new-onset diabetes, or new-onset pancreatic exocrine insufficiency between the two groups. However, the length of hospital stay in the one-step LPN group was significantly shorter than that in the surgical step-up group. Univariate regression analysis showed that the surgical approach (one-step/step-up) was not the risk factor for major complications or death. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that computed tomography (CT) severity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class IV, and white blood cell (WBC) were the significant risk factors for major complications or death.

CONCLUSION

One-step LPN is as safe and effective as the surgical step-up approach for treating IPN patients, and reduces total hospital stay.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.

Necrotizing pancreatitis: A review of the interventions

Acute pancreatitis may have a wide range of severity, from a clinically self-limiting to a quickly fatal course. Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) is the most dreadful evolution associated to a poor prognosis: mortality is approximately 15% and up to 30-39% in case of infected necrosis, which is the major cause of death. Intervention is generally required for infected pancreatic necrosis and less commonly in patients with sterile necrosis who are symptomatic (gastric or duodenal outlet or biliary obstruction). Traditionally the most widely used approach to infected necrosis has been open surgical necrosectomy, but it is burdened by high morbidity (34-95%) and mortality (11-39%) rates. In the last two decades the treatment of NP has significantly evolved from open surgery towards minimally invasive techniques (percutaneous catheter drainage, per-oral endoscopic, laparoscopy and rigid retroperitoneal videoscopy). The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of the art of the management of NP and to clarify some aspects about its diagnosis and treatment.