Laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy

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.

The minimally invasive approach to surgical management of pancreatic diseases

Laparoscopic pancreas surgery has undergone rapid development over the past decade. Although acceptability among traditional surgeons has been low, emerging specialty centers are reporting excellent outcomes for advanced and complex operations, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy. A note of caution is necessary: These outstanding results are from skilled surgeons, many of whom are pioneers in the field, who have overcome the learning curve over many years of innovation. As the procedures gain wider practice, outcomes need to be carefully watched because many of these procedures are extremely demanding technically. Although many have suggested that controlled, randomized studies comparing laparoscopic pancreatic resections with open resections are necessary to establish the efficacy of laparoscopic procedure, the cumulative data on the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure argues against such an approach. The logistic difficulties of conducting such studies will be considerable given patient preferences, the need for multicenter studies, and the rapid adoption of the laparoscopic procedure among experienced pancreatic surgeons. A more reasonable approach to truly evaluate the safety of these procedures is the establishment of a national registry that can measure progress of the field and record outcomes in the wider, nonspecialty community. Hepatobiliary training programs should also establish a minimal standard of training for many of the advanced procedures, such as the pancreaticoduodenectomy, so that the benefit of laparoscopic surgery can be made available outside of just a few specialty centers.

Laparoscopic-assisted management of severe necrotizing pancreatitis with obstructive jaundice: a case report

We report a severely infected necrotizing pancreatitis managed with hand-assisted laparoscopic necrosectomy along with a review of the relevant literature. Minimally invasive necrosectomy has been shown to be efficient and advantageous in managing necrotizing pancreatitis. Multiple techniques have been advocated over the last decade. Laparoscopic pancreatic debridement is a feasible option for some patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. We selected hand-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy, which has gained some favor over open necrosectomy because of the morbidity and mortality associated with laparotomy. We report on an Indian male patient who presented with acute abdomen and severe jaundice. A CT scan of the abdomen showed severe necrotizing pancreatitis. After conservative management failed, a hand-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy was performed. The patient recovered and was discharged 4 weeks after surgery.

Minimally invasive approach to pancreatic necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

Conventional open surgery for infected pancreatic necrosis is associated with significant surgical morbidity, that is, wound complications, facial dehiscence, and intestinal fistulae. In recent years, there has been interest in attempting to reduce this surgical morbidity by adopting a number of minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with pancreatic necrosis underwent pancreatic necrosectomy by minimally invasive surgery (11 men, 4 women; age group: 25-64 years, mean age: 46 years). Apache II scores ranged from 5 to 14. Pancreatic necrosectomy was performed by laparoscopic transperitoneal approach in 12 patients (transmesocolic, 4 patients; transgastrocolic, 6 patients; and gastrohepatic omentum, 2 patients), by retroperitoneal approach in 2 patients, and by a combination of methods in 1 patient (endoscopic transgastric drainage followed by laparoscopic intracavity necrosectomy). Relook laparoscopy was done in 5 patients to assess for residual necrosis.

RESULTS

All the patients tolerated the procedure well, and there was no mortality. Two of them had pancreatic fistula, which eventually responded to conservative treatment. Three patients were converted to open necrosectomy because of bleeding or difficulty to access the area of necrosis. The mean operating time was 120 ± 10 minutes. There were no postoperative complications related to the procedure itself, such as major wound infections, intestinal fistulae, or postoperative hemorrhage. Postoperative computed tomographic scans confirmed adequacy of debridement. The average length of hospital stay after surgery was 14 days.

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 available, either with open surgery or among different minimally invasive techniques.

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.

Critical Care of the Patient with Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory process of the pancreas with variable involvement of regional tissues and remote organs. This review gives a comprehensive overview of the aetiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and therapy of acute pancreatitis relevant to the intensivist. Recent international guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis are summarised.

Eighty percent of acute pancreatitis episodes are related either to gallstones or to alcohol abuse. Independent of its aetiology, the pathophysiologic hallmark of acute pancreatitis is the premature activation of trypsin, which leads to massive pancreas inflammation, systemic overproduction of pro-inflammatory mediators and ultimately remote organ dysfunction. All guidelines agree that the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis should include clinical symptoms, increased serum amylase or lipase levels and/or characteristic findings on computed tomography. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is recommended as a causative therapy in patients with acute cholangitis or a strong suspicion of gallstones. All guidelines underline the importance of vigorous fluid resuscitation and supplemental oxygen therapy and prefer enteral over parenteral nutrition, with the majority favouring the nasojejunal route. In view of lacking scientific evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection of pancreatic necroses is discouraged by most guidelines. Computed tomography-guided fine needle aspiration is the technique of choice to differentiate between sterile and infected pancreas necrosis. While sterile pancreatic necrosis should be managed conservatively, infected pancreatic necrosis requires debridement and drainage supplemented by antibiotic therapy. Surgical necrosectomy is the traditional approach, but less invasive techniques (retroperitoneal or laparoscopic necrosectomy, computed tomography-guided percutaneous catheter drainage) may be equally effective.

Effect of a pneumoperitoneum on systemic cytokine levels, bacterial translocation, and organ complications in a rat model of severe acute pancreatitis with infected necrosis

BACKGROUND

Infection of pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is strongly associated with sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction and is an absolute indication for surgery. Patients with IPN are critically ill at the time of surgery and may benefit from a minimally invasive approach with reduced surgical trauma. Recently, several minimally invasive necrosectomy techniques have been reported. However, the effects and potential dangers of a pneumoperitoneum in IPN cases are unknown. This study aimed to determine the effects of a pneumoperitoneum on systemic cytokine levels, bacterial translocation, and systemic organ complications in a rat model of IPN.

METHODS

For this study, IPN was induced in Wistar rats using retrograde intraductal infusion of 3% taurocholate. After 8 h, the animals were subjected to either laparoscopy (pneumoperitoneum at 8 mmHg) or laparotomy for 1 h and killed after 1 or 3 h. Severe acute pancreatitis with IPN was proved by serum amylase and lipase, histology, tissue activity of myeloperoxidase (MPO), and bacteriology. Systemic levels for interleukin-10 (IL-10), IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and lipopolysaccarides were determined by enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA). Systemic organ damage and dysfunction were evaluated using MPO activity (lung), serum creatinine (kidney), and serum aminotransferases (liver).

RESULTS

Necrotizing pancreatitis developed in all the animals. Most of the animals (85%) had proven infected necrosis. Elevated cytokine levels and deteriorated organ parameters demonstrated systemic inflammation and organ failure. Although there was a tendency toward a higher level of proinflammatory cytokines after laparotomy, there were no significant differences between laparotomy and laparoscopy. Furthermore, these alterations were not accompanied by any differences in bacterial translocation (lipopolysaccharides), systemic organ damage, or mortality between laparoscopy and laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

In the current model of infected pancreatic necrosis, a pneumoperitoneum did not result in increased cytokine release or bacterial translocation. However, the putative advantage of less surgical trauma with the laparoscopic approach did not play a significant role in the setting of severe acute pancreatitis with IPN.

Emergency laparoscopy--current best practice

Emergency laparoscopic surgery allows both the evaluation of acute abdominal pain and the treatment of many common acute abdominal disorders. This review critically evaluates the current evidence base for the use of laparoscopy, both diagnostic and interventional, in the emergency abdomen, and provides guidance for surgeons as to current best practise. Laparoscopic surgery is firmly established as the best intervention in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and most gynaecological emergencies but requires further randomised controlled trials to definitively establish its role in other conditions.

Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparoscopic exploration can be used to identify the causative pathology of acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery also allows treatment of many intraabdominal disorders. This report was prepared to describe the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to laparotomy or nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

A panel of European experts in abdominal and gynecological surgery was assembled and participated in a consensus conference using Delphi methods. The aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the most common diseases that may cause acute abdominal pain.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Laparoscopic surgery was found to be clearly superior for patients with a presumable diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer, acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. In the emergency setting, laparoscopy is of unclear or limited value if adhesive bowel obstruction, acute diverticulitis, nonbiliary pancreatitis, hernia incarceration, or mesenteric ischemia are suspected. In stable patients with acute abdominal pain, noninvasive diagnostics should be fully exhausted before considering explorative surgery. However, diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful if no diagnosis can be found by conventional diagnostics. More clinical data are needed on the use of laparoscopy after blunt or penetrating trauma of the abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to diagnostic and therapeutic advantages, laparoscopic surgery is useful for the majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, but noninvasive diagnostic aids should be exhausted first. Depending on symptom severity, laparoscopy should be advocated if routine diagnostic procedures have failed to yield results.

Outcome of open necrosectomy in acute pancreatitis

Twenty percent of all acute pancreatitis patients present with necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrosis is responsible for 80% of deaths in the course of the disease though, thanks to antibiotic prophylaxis, the infection rate is decreasing. When infection occurs, the prognosis is poor, and the need for debridement and drainage of the necrosis is mandatory. The aim of this study was to review the most recent literature in order to present an update of open surgical management of infected necrosis.

Laparoscopic management of severe acute pancreatitis

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) remains a serious disease state difficult to manage. Laparoscopic surgery represents a relatively new solution to this problem. This study was aimed to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic treatment of SAP and the selection of laparoscopic procedures in various stages of SAP according to different pathologic alterations.

METHODS

Thirteen patients, 9 men and 4 women with an average age of 46 years old, were diagnosed with SAP. Laparoscopic necrosectomy followed by external drainage were performed on 7 patients with massive fluid collections and/or infected necrosis in acute reaction phase of SAP. For 2 cases in subacute phase characterized by fresh-formed adhesions and encapsulation, laparoscopic intracavitary debridement experienced difficulty. For the other 4 patients in late phase with well-defined pancreatic or peripancreatic pseudocyst/abscess, ultrasound-guided, directly visualized laparoscopic intracavitary debridement, and external drainage were carried out with ease and efficiency.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic procedures were accomplished successfully on 12 patients (92.3%), except for 1 conversion (7.7%) to open laparotomy owing to poor exposure and hard maneuvers in subacute phase. There was no mortality in this group. Patients were witnessed to have accelerated recovery following laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic technique offers new hope for the treatment of SAP. It is recommended as a feasible, effective, and less traumatic therapeutic means on condition that the strategy of individualization is followed.