Debridement and drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis by a novel laparoendoscopic rendezvous maneuver: experience with 6 cases

[Transgastric necrectomy for acute pancreatitis]

The review is devoted to transgastric necrectomy in the treatment of infected forms of acute pancreatitis. The authors discuss the indications for transgastric necrectomy and technical features of these interventions (direct endoscopic necrectomy, laparoscopic and open transgastric necrectomy). Numerous studies devoted to results of transgastric necrectomy indicate advisability of this procedure in carefully selected patients and interdisciplinary interaction of various specialists before and after surgery. Regional specialized centers for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis are necessary for wider introduction of minimally invasive surgical technologies and their personalization.

Transgastric pancreatic necrosectomy: Tricks of the trade

Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) affects 20 % of the 300,000 patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis every year. Mechanical intervention to debride necrotic and/or infected pancreatic and peripancreatic tissue is frequently required. Minimally invasive approaches to treat pancreatic necrosis have gained popularity over the last two decades, including transgastric pancreatic necrosectomy. The purpose of this report is to review the indications, surgical technique, advantages, and limitations of surgical transgastric necrosectomy.

Outcomes in Endoscopic and Operative Transgastric Pancreatic Debridement

OBJECTIVES

Select patients with anatomically favorable walled off pancreatic necrosis may be treated by endoscopic (Endo-TGD) or operative (OR-TGD) transgastric debridement (TGD). We compared our experience with these 2 approaches.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Select necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) patients are suitable for TGD which may be accomplished endoscopically or surgically. Limited experience exists contrasting these techniques exists.

METHODS

Patients undergoing Endo-TGD and OR-TGD at a single, high-volume pancreatic center between 2008 and 2019 were identified from a prospective database. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of these 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Among 498 NP patients undergoing necrosis intervention, 160 (32%) had TGD: 59 Endo-TGD and 101 OR-TGD. The groups were statistically similar in age, comorbidity, pancreatitis etiology, necrosis anatomy, pancreatitis severity, and timing of TGD from pancreatitis insult. OR-TGD required 1.1 ± 0.5 and Endo-TGD 3.0 ± 2.0 debridements/patient. Fewer hospital readmissions and repeat necrosis interventions, and shorter total inpatient length of stay were observed in OR-TGD patients. New-onset organ failure [Endo-TGD (13%); OR-TGD (13%); P = 1.0] was similar between groups. Hospital length of stay after TGD was significantly longer in patients undergoing Endo-TGD (13.8 ± 20.8 days) compared to OR-TGD (9.4 ± 6.1 days; P = 0.047). Mortality was 7% in Endo-TGD and 1% in OR-TGD (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Operative and endoscopic transgastric debridement achieve necrosis resolution with different temporal and procedural profiles. Clear multidisciplinary communication is essential to determine appropriate approach to individual necrotizing pancreatitis patients.

Asian consensus statements on endoscopic management of walled-off necrosis. Part 2: Endoscopic management

Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a new term for encapsulated necrotic tissue after severe acute pancreatitis. Various terminologies such as pseudocyst, necroma, pancreatic abscess, and infected necrosis were previously used in the literature, resulting in confusion. The current and past terminologies must be reconciled to meaningfully interpret past data. Recently, endoscopic necrosectomy was introduced as a treatment option and is now preferred over surgical necrosectomy when the expertise is available. However, high-quality evidence is still lacking, and there is no standard management strategy for WON. The consensus meeting aimed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for WON and the role of endoscopic interventions in its management. In the Consensus Conference, 27 experts from eight Asian countries took an active role and examined key clinical aspects of WON diagnosis and endoscopic management. Statements were crafted based on literature review and expert opinion, employing the modified Delphi method. All statements were substantiated by the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We created 27 consensus statements for WON diagnosis and management, including details of endoscopic procedures. When there was not enough solid evidence to support the statements, this was clearly acknowledged to facilitate future research. Proposed management strategies were formulated and are illustrated using flow charts. These recommendations, which are based on the best current scientific evidence and expert opinion, will be useful for guiding endoscopic management of WON. Part 2 of this statement focused on the endoscopic management of WON.

Transgastric Pancreatic Necrosectomy: How I Do It

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a serious medical problem that often requires intervention to debride necrotic pancreatic and peripancreatic tissue. Recently, minimally invasive approaches have been applied to pancreatic necrosectomy. The purpose of this report is to review the history of transgastric pancreatic debridement, identify appropriate patient selection criteria, and highlight technical "pearls." We present this subject matter in the context of our own clinical experience, with a primary focus on a "How I Do It" type of technical description.

Successful Resolution of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Caused by Pancreatic Pseudocyst or Walled-Off Necrosis After Acute Pancreatitis: The Role of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage

OBJECTIVE

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) can be caused by gastroparesis or gastric outlet obstruction, which may occur when pancreatic pseudocyst (PP) or walled-off necrosis (WON) compresses the stomach. The aim of the study was to explore a proper surgical treatment.

METHODS

From June 2010 to June 2013, 25 of 148 patients with AP suffered DGE. Among them, 12 were caused by gastroparesis, 1 was a result of obstruction from a Candida albicans plug, and 12 were gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) compressed by PP (n = 8) or WON (n = 4), which were treated by percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).

RESULTS

All 12 cases of compressing GOO achieved resolution by PCD after 6 [1.86] and 37.25 [12.02] days for PP and WON, respectively. Five cases developed intracystic infection, 3 cases had pancreatic fistulae whereas 2 achieved resolution and 1 underwent a pseudocyst jejunostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric outlet obstruction caused by a PP or WON is a major cause of DGE in patients with AP. Percutaneous catheter drainage with multiple sites, large-bore tubing, and lavage may be a good therapy due to high safety and minimal invasiveness.

Retroperitoneoscopic Anatomical Necrosectomy

Background. Video-assisted retroperitoneal necrosectomy is a minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of a modified single-stage video-assisted retroperitoneal necrosectomy, retroperitoneoscopic anatomical necrosectomy (REAN). Methods. Between September 2010 and May 2012, a total of 17 patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis underwent REAN. The surgical procedures were similar to retroperitoneoscopic pancreatectomy, in which 3 trocars are utilized. Briefly, the perirenal space was entered through the posterior pararenal space. Dissection proceeded from posterior to anterior direction to expose the dorsal side of the perirenal fascia. This was opened to reach the anterior perirenal space, where the peripancreatic abscess was located. Necrotic tissue was then debrided and catheter drainage was performed in a single stage. Results. Operating time ranged from 45 to 100 minutes with minimal blood loss. All patients recovered except for one who died. Major perisurgical complications included peritoneal injury (1 patient), splenic vein injury (1 patient), retroperitoneal infection with paralytic ileus (1 patient), hydrothorax and atelectasis (2 patients), and subcutaneous cellulitis beneath the incision (3 patients). Two patients required additional percutaneous catheter drainage, and 1 patient required a laparotomy to debride the remaining necrotic tissue. Postoperative hospital stay ranged from 21 to 64 days. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that REAN, a modified single-stage video-assisted retroperitoneal approach, was safe and feasible for the treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. The advantages of this procedure include direct access with shorter operating time, complete necrotic tissue debridement, easy hemostasis, simple manipulation, and easy drainage.

Laparoscopic transgastric endolumenal cystogastrostomy and pancreatic debridement

BACKGROUND

Cystogastrostomy is commonly performed for internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (PP) and concomitant debridement of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). While an open approach to cystogastrostomy is well established, an optimal minimally invasive technique continues to evolve. This laparoscopic transgastric endolumenal cystogastrostomy presented here allows for a large cystogastrostomy with complete debridement of necrosis and internal drainage through a minimally invasive approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 22 patients with symptomatic PP/WOPN treated with attempted laparoscopic transgastric endolumenal cystogastrostomy (Lap-TEC) and pancreatic debridement. Short- and long-term outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

From November 2006 to March 2013, a total of 22 Lap-TEC/pancreatic debridement procedures were attempted; 15 were completed laparoscopically. The median age of the cohort was 49.5 ± 12 years (range = 18-71), average body mass index = 29.1 kg/m(2), 77 % had an ASA score ≥ 3, and 10 were female. Gallstones were the most common etiology (50 %), and median time between initial presentation and surgery was 86 days (range = 0-360). Median operative time and estimated blood loss were 213 min and 100 cc, respectively. Forty-one percent of the patients were admitted to the ICU postoperatively and the average length of stay was 14 days (range = 4-50). Median follow-up was 2 months (range = 0-62.5), with one patient having a procedure-related complication. No other reoperations, late complications, or mortalities occurred. All patients had resolution of their symptoms and fluid collections.

CONCLUSION

This technique of internal drainage via Lap-TEC and pancreatic debridement has been successful in achieving primary drainage and relieving symptoms of PP/WOPN with no mortality and minimal morbidity.

Laparoscopic pancreatic resections

PURPOSE

Pancreatic surgery is technically complex and requires considerable expertise. Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery adds the need for considerable experience with advanced laparoscopic techniques. Despite the technical difficulties, an increasing number of centers propagate the use of laparoscopy in pancreatic surgery over the last decade.

METHODS

In this review, we provide an overview of the literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Larger prospective randomized studies have emerged in the subset of laparoscopic or retroperitoneoscopic surgery for acute pancreatitis, considerable single center experience has been reported for laparoscopic pancreatic tail resection, and laparoscopic pancreatic head resection, however, is still restricted to a few experienced centers worldwide.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is becoming more and more established, in particular for the treatment of benign and premalignant lesions of the pancreatic body and tail. It has been shown to decrease postoperative pain, narcotic use, and length of hospital stay in larger single center experience. However, prospective trials are needed in laparoscopic resective pancreatic surgery to evaluate its advantages, safety, and efficacy in the treatment of pancreatic neoplasms and in particular in malignant pancreatic tumors.

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 operations for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: comparison of minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy with endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

A "step-up" approach is currently the treatment of choice for acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy (MINE) and endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy (ETG) and to compare it to open necrosectomy (ONE).

METHODS

Patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to our institution from 1998 to 2010 (n = 334) were identified. From these, patients who underwent either ONE, MINE, or ETG were selected for further analysis. Statistical analysis employed 2-sided Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2010, 32 patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis were treated by minimally invasive procedures including MINE (n = 14) and ETG (n = 18) or with the classic technique of ONE (n = 30). Time from onset of symptoms to intervention was less for ONE than for MINE or ETG (median, 11 vs 39 vs 54 days; P < .05). The rate of critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock was greatest in ONE (93%) and MINE (71%) compared with ETG (17%; P < .05). Problems after ONE and MINE were ongoing sepsis (ONE 73% vs MINE 29% vs ETG 11%) and bleeding requiring intervention (ONE 26% vs MINE 21% vs ETG 17%). A specific complication of ETG was gastric perforation into the peritoneal cavity during the procedure (28%), requiring immediate open pseudocystogastrostomy. Laparotomy was necessary in 21% after MINE and 28% after ETG owing to specific complications or persistent infected necrosis. Overall mortality was greatest after ONE (ONE 63% vs MINE 21% vs ETG 6%; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality remains high in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Operative procedures should be delayed as long as possible to decrease morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive procedures can avoid laparotomy, but also introduce specific complications requiring immediate or secondary open operative treatment. Minimally invasive procedures require unique expertise and therefore should only be performed at specialized centers.

Surgical treatment of acute pancreatitis today

Az enyhe akut pancreatitis kezelése alapvetően konzervatív, míg súlyos esetekben a sebészi kezelésnek jelentős szerepe van. Módszer: A szerzők az utóbbi 10 évben megjelent, a műtét kérdéseit taglaló közlemények alapján elemzik a sebészi kezelés indikációit, időzítését és a műtét technikai kérdéseit. Eredmények/következtetések: A steril pancreasnecrosis csak ritkán, a szeptikus necrosis azonban műtéti indikációt képez, ha a konzervatív kezelés eredménytelen. A terápiarezisztens sokszervi elégtelenség, a súlyos hasi kompartmentszindróma és egyéb sebészi szövődmény, mint a vérzés, perforáció is műtéti beavatkozást tesz szükségessé. Pancreatitist okozó epekövesség talaján kialakult cholestasis esetén sürgős endoszkópos sphincterotomia és később cholecystectomia javasolt. Pancreasnecrosis esetén a műtét ideális időpontja a betegség kezdetétől számított 21. nap utánra tehető, mivel a „korai” műtétek szövődmény- és halálozási aránya magas. Fontos a gondos necrectomia, amelynek a retrocolicus és retroduodenalis terekre is ki kell terjednie. A nyitott has kezelésének több a szövődménye, ezért csak válogatott esetekben javasolják. A műtétet posztoperatív bursa omentalis lavage-zsal érdemes kiegészíteni. Orv. Hetil., 2010, 41, 1697–1701.

Therapeutic intervention and surgery of acute pancreatitis

The clinical course of acute pancreatitis varies from mild to severe. Assessment of severity and etiology of acute pancreatitis is important to determine the strategy of management for acute pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis is classified according to its morphology into edematous pancreatitis and necrotizing pancreatitis. Edematous pancreatitis accounts for 80-90% of acute pancreatitis and remission can be achieved in most of the patients without receiving any special treatment. Necrotizing pancreatitis occupies 10-20% of acute pancreatitis and the mortality rate is reported to be 14-25%. The mortality rate is particularly high (34-40%) for infected pancreatic necrosis that is accompanied by bacterial infection in the necrotic tissue of the pancreas (Widdison and Karanjia in Br J Surg 80:148-154, 1993; Ogawa et al. in Research of the actual situations of acute pancreatitis. Research Group for Specific Retractable Diseases, Specific Disease Measure Research Work Sponsored by Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. Heisei 12 Research Report, pp 17-33, 2001). On the other hand, the mortality rate is reported to be 0-11% for sterile pancreatic necrosis which is not accompanied by bacterial infection (Ogawa et al. 2001; Bradely and Allen in Am J Surg 161:19-24, 1991; Rattner et al. in Am J Surg 163:105-109, 1992). The Japanese (JPN) Guidelines were designed to provide recommendations regarding the management of acute pancreatitis in patients having a variety of clinical characteristics. This article describes the guidelines for the surgical management and interventional therapy of acute pancreatitis by incorporating the latest evidence for the management of acute pancreatitis in the Japanese-language version of JPN guidelines 2010. Eleven clinical questions (CQ) are proposed: (1) worsening clinical manifestations and hematological data, positive blood bacteria culture test, positive blood endotoxin test, and the presence of gas bubbles in and around the pancreas on CT scan are indirect findings of infected pancreatic necrosis; (2) bacteriological examination by fine needle aspiration is useful for making a definitive diagnosis of infected pancreatic necrosis; (3) conservative treatment should be performed in sterile pancreatic necrosis; (4) infected pancreatic necrosis is an indication for interventional therapy. However, conservative treatment by antibiotic administration is also available in patients who are in stable general condition; (5) early surgery for necrotizing pancreatitis is not recommended, and it should be delayed as long as possible; (6) necrosectomy is recommended as a surgical procedure for infected necrosis; (7) after necrosectomy, a long-term follow-up paying attention to pancreatic function and complications including the stricture of the bile duct and the pancreatic duct is necessary; (8) drainage including percutaneous, endoscopic and surgical procedure should be performed for pancreatic abscess; (9) if the clinical findings of pancreatic abscess are not improved by percutaneous or endoscopic drainage, surgical drainage should be performed; (10) interventional treatment should be performed for pancreatic pseudocysts that give rise to symptoms, accompany complications or increase the diameter of cysts and (11) percutaneous drainage, endoscopic drainage or surgical procedures are selected in accordance with the conditions of individual cases.

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.

Current status of minimally invasive necrosectomy for post-inflammatory pancreatic necrosis

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews current knowledge on minimally invasive pancreatic necrosectomy.

BACKGROUND

Blunt (non-anatomical) debridement of necrotic tissue at laparotomy is the standard method of treatment of infected post-inflammatory pancreatic necrosis. Recognition that laparotomy may add to morbidity by increasing postoperative organ dysfunction has led to the development of alternative, minimally invasive methods for debridement. This study reports the status of minimally invasive necrosectomy by different approaches.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE for the period 1996-2008 were undertaken. Only studies with original data and information on outcome were included. This produced a final population of 28 studies reporting on 344 patients undergoing minimally invasive necrosectomy, with a median (range) number of patients per study of nine (1-53). Procedures were categorized as retroperitoneal, endoscopic or laparoscopic.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients underwent retroperitoneal necrosectomy, of whom 58 (41%) had complications and 18 (13%) required laparotomy. There were 22 (16%) deaths. Overall, 157 patients underwent endoscopic necrosectomy; major complications were reported in 31 (20%) and death in seven (5%). Laparoscopic necrosectomy was carried out in 46 patients, of whom five (11%) required laparotomy and three (7%) died.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive necrosectomy is technically feasible and a body of evidence now suggests that acceptable outcomes can be achieved. There are no comparisons of results, either with open surgery or among different minimally invasive techniques.

Practical strategies for case selection in minimally invasive necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive necrosectomy is an umbrella term encapsulating the retroperitoneal, endoscopic and laparoscopic approaches. However, current evidence is unclear in terms of which approach to select in any particular setting.

METHODS/RESULTS

This leading article provides a pragmatic guide to approach selection in treating pancreatic necrosis with particular reference to the use of minimally invasive approaches. Current evidence in relation to timing of surgery, use of fine-needle aspiration and detailed imaging by magnetic resonance scanning is incorporated into a modern treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSION

The era of minimally invasive necrosectomy has arrived. In the absence of randomised trial evidence, the keys to contemporary management of pancreatic necrosis are good multidisciplinary care, adequate high-quality imaging and careful consideration of all available treatment options including traditional open approaches.