Cargando…
Outcomes from different minimally invasive approaches for infected necrotizing pancreatitis
Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), the leading cause of mortality in the late phase of acute pancreatitis, nearly always requires intervention. In recent years minimal invasive surgery is becoming more and more popular for the management of INP, but few studies compared different minimally inv...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31192974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016111 |
Sumario: | Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), the leading cause of mortality in the late phase of acute pancreatitis, nearly always requires intervention. In recent years minimal invasive surgery is becoming more and more popular for the management of INP, but few studies compared different minimally invasive strategies. The objective of this observation study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness with several minimal invasive treatment. We retrospectively reviewed cases of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD), minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (MARPN), small incision pancreatic necrosectom (SIPN), single-incision access port retroperitoneoscopic debridement (SIAPRD) for INP between January 2013 and October 2018. Data were analyzed for the primary endpoints as well as secondary endpoints. Eighty-one patients with INP were treated by minimally invasive procedures including PCD (n = 32), MARPN (n = 18), SIPN (n = 16), and SIAPRD (n = 15). Overall mortality was greatest after PCD 34% (MARPN 11% vs SIPN 6% vs SIRLD6%). Problems after initial surgery were ongoing sepsis (PCD 56% vs MARPN 50% vs SIPN 31% vs SIAPRD13%; P < .05). There was a significant difference in number of interventions (median, 6 vs 5 vs 3 vs 2; P < .05). Time from onset of symptoms to recovery was less for SIAPRD than for PCD, MARPN, or SIPN (median, 45 vs 102 vs 80 vs 67 days; P < .05). SIAPRD remedy evidently improved outcomes, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome, number of interventions, length of hospital stay and overall cost. It is technically feasible, safe, and effective for INP, in contrast to others, and can achieve the best clinical results with the least cost. Furthermore, relevant multicentre randomized controlled trials are eager to prove these findings. |
---|