Retroperitoneoscopy in the management of drained infected pancreatic necrosis

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 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.

Video-assisted Laparoscopic Débridement for Retroperitoneal Pancreatic Collections: A Reliable Step-up Approach

Several minimal access routes have been implemented as a step-up approach to treat infected pancreatic necrosis. We evaluate our experience with a series of consecutive patients with pancreatic collections treated with video-assisted retroperitoneal débridement (VARD). Seven patients were consecutively treated with VARD: five patients after acute necrotizing pancreatitis, one chronic pancreatitis, and one patient with perforation after endoscopic sphincterotomy. The indication for VARD was: development of sepsis, positive direct culture of the necrosis, and compartment syndrome. The procedure was performed under general anesthesia and modified lateral decubitus. There were four left, two right, and one bilateral VARD. Mean hospital stay since admission to VARD procedure was 30 days (range, 12 to 72 days). Mean operative time was 63 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications. Two patients needed a second procedure to control sepsis. Most patients had a long intensive care unit (ICU) stay with 6.1 days (range, 2 to 22 days) mean postoperative ICU stay. One patient had a hypernatremia as a consequence of saline lavage and three patients presented pancreatic fistula that were managed with conservative treatment. There was no mortality. VARD approach is a recommended step-up approach to treat infected pancreatic necrosis, and its indication may be extended to treat other retroperitoneal collections.

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis using retroperitoneal necrosectomy with flexible endoscope: 10 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to provide our experience in the management of infected and drained pancreatic necrosis using the retroperitoneal approach.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study in a tertiary care university hospital. Thirty-two patients with confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis were studied. Superficial necrosectomy was performed with lavage and aspiration of debris. This was achieved though a retroperitoneal approach of the pancreatic area and under the direct vision of a flexible endoscope. The follow-up procedure using retroperitoneal endoscopy did not require taking the patient to the operating room. The main outcome measures were infection control, morbidity, and mortality related to technique, reintervention, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant morbidity or mortality related to the technique was observed in all of the patients with infected pancreatic necrosis treated with this retroperitoneal approach compared with published data using other approaches. Reinterventions were not required and patients are currently asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal access of the pancreatic area is a good approach for drainage and debridement of infected pancreatic necrosis. Translumbar retroperitoneal endoscopy allows exploration under direct visual guidance avoiding open transabdominal reintervention and the risk of contamination of the abdominal cavity. This technique does not increase morbidity and mortality, can be performed at the patients' bedside as many times as necessary, and has advantages over other retroperitoneal approaches.

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.

Infected pancreatic necrosis: minimizing the cut

The challenge for the pancreatologist managing patients with infected pancreatic necrosis is to devise a treatment algorithm that enables recovery but at the same time limits the morbidity and mortality. The current gold standard remains open necrosectomy. Recent literature contains scattered reports of endoscopic, radiologic, laparoscopic, percutaneous and lumbotomy approaches to managing patients with this condition. This literature review addresses the role of techniques that aim to minimize the physiological insult to the patient with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy: improvement in morbidity and mortality with a less invasive approach

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (MARPN) versus open necrosectomy in the treatment of infected or nonresolving pancreatic necrosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Infected pancreatic necrosis may lead to progressive organ failure and death. Minimal access techniques have been developed in an attempt to reduce the high mortality of open necrosectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis on a prospective data base comprising 189 consecutive patients undergoing MARPN or open necrosectomy (August 1997 to September 2008). Outcome measures included total and postoperative ICU and hospital stays, organ dysfunction, complications and mortality using an intention to treat analysis.

RESULTS

Overall 137 patients underwent MARPN versus open necrosectomy in 52. Median (range) age of the patients was 57.5 (18-85) years; 118 (62%) were male. A total of 131 (69%) patients were tertiary referrals, with a median time to transfer from index hospital of 19 (2-76) days. Etiology was gallstones or alcohol in 129 cases (68%); 98 of 168 (58%) patients had a positive culture at the first procedure. Of the 137 patients, 34 (31%) had postoperative organ failure in the MARPN group, and 39 of 52 (56%) in the open group (P<0.0001); 59/137 (43%) versus 40/52 (77%), respectively, required postoperative ICU support (P<0.0001). Of the 137 patients 75 (55%) had complications in the MARPN group and 42 of 52 (81%) in the open group (P=0.001). There were 26 (19%) deaths in the MARPN group and 20 (38%) following open procedure (P=0.009). Age (P<0.0001), preoperative multiorgan failure (P<0.0001), and surgical procedure (MARPN, P=0.016) were independent predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown significant benefits for a minimal access approach including fewer complications and deaths compared with open necrosectomy.

Percutaneous "stepped" drainage technique for infected pancreatic necrosis

INTRODUCTION

Aggressive surgical pancreatic debridement remains the standard of care, may require multiple abdominal explorations and is associated with high mortality. We have introduced the stepped technique of percutaneous treatment of infected peripancreatic fluid collections.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with severe infected necrotizing pancreatitis who were managed percutaneously. Culture results, number of radiological interventions, length of stay, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 8 patients with a median number of Ranson's criteria of 4.5. Sixty invasive procedures were performed. A median number of two separate catheter sites per patient were necessary for the removal of necrotic material. Median duration of percutaneous intervention was 71.5 days with complete removal of necrotic material and resolution of infected collections in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons and interventional radiologists should be familiar with this evolving technique which is less invasive then surgery, but may prolong the time necessary for complete resolution.

Case-matched comparison of the retroperitoneal approach with laparotomy for necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive necrosectomy through a retroperitoneal approach is gaining popularity for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. There is, however, no substantial evidence from comparative studies in favor of this technique over laparotomy. The aim of this case-matched study was to perform the first head-to-head comparison of necrosectomy by the retroperitoneal approach with laparotomy in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2005, there were 15 of 841 consecutive acute pancreatitis patients who underwent necrosectomy by the retroperitoneal approach using a small flank incision. These patients were matched for the presence of preoperative organ failure, status of infection, timing of surgery, age, and computed tomography severity index score with 15 of 46 patients treated with necrosectomy by laparotomy and continuous postoperative lavage (CPL).

RESULTS

In addition to all matched preoperative characteristics, there were no significant differences in sex, preoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, preoperative ICU stay, preoperative APACHE-II scores, and preoperative multiple organ failure (MOF). Postoperative complications requiring reintervention occurred in six patients in each group (p = 1.000). Postoperative new-onset MOF occurred in 10 patients in the laparotomy/CPL group versus 2 patients in the retroperitoneal approach group (p = 0.008). Six patients died in the laparotomy/CPL group versus 1 patient in the retroperitoneal approach group (p = 0.080).

CONCLUSIONS

The less postoperative organ failure and the trend toward lower mortality may point to a benefit of the retroperitoneal approach over laparotomy. A randomized controlled design is, however, still required to answer definitively the question of which operative technique is preferably for patients with (infected) necrotizing pancreatitis.

Feasibility of minimally invasive approaches in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Background

Minimally invasive procedures to treat infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) are gaining popularity. The proportion of patients suitable for this approach remains unknown.

Methods

Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were reviewed from 106 consecutive patients who had surgery for INP between 2000 and 2003 in 11 Dutch hospitals. Collections related to the pancreas were classified according to their distance from the left abdominal wall. Five radiologists judged ‘accessibility’ for drain placement and the likelihood that there was a fluid component that would drain (‘drainability’). Agreement between radiologists was determined.

Results

CT scans of 80 (75 per cent) patients were available (59 men; age range 29–80 years). The median interval between hospital admission and preoperative CT scan was 20 days. In 55 (69 per cent) patients, the lateral border of the collection was less than 5 cm from the left abdominal wall. Placement of a drain was deemed feasible in 67 (84 (range 77–89) per cent) patients; mean(s.d.) kappa 0·428(0·096). In 45 (56 per cent) patients, a drain could be placed through the left retroperitoneum. In 43 (54 (range 49–82) per cent) patients, collections were judged to contain a drainable fluid component. Interobserver agreement on ‘drainability’ was poor, mean(s.d.) kappa 0·289(0·101).

Conclusion

Most peripancreatic collections in INP were considered accessible to a minimally invasive approach.

Acute biliary pancreatitis, endoscopy, and laparoscopy

Current practices for diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct stones are not evidence-based. Acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) is a specific situation in which endoscopic procedures are either overused or misused. Pancreatitis is a poor marker for choledocholithiasis. Prognostic systems are accurate to discern those patients with ABP who do not need aggressive procedures. Patients with a benign ABP do not need an endoscopic approach. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is an underrated treatment for patients with choledocholithiasis. Laparoscopic approach to infected necrotic collections and pseudocysts warrant further investigations.