'Step-port' laparoscopic cystgastrostomy for the management of organized solid predominant post-acute fluid collections after severe acute pancreatitis

Robotic pancreatic necrosectomy and internal drainage for walled-off pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic necrosectomy with concomitant internal drainage is a single-stage treatment option for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). However, an optimal minimally invasive technique has not been established. We evaluated the safety and single-intervention success rate of robotic pancreatic necrosectomy and internal drainage.

METHODS

Patients with WOPN undergoing robotic pancreatic necrosectomy and internal drainage at a single institution from 2011-2022 were identified. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical symptom resolution following the index surgical intervention.

RESULTS

57 patients underwent robotic pancreatic necrosectomy and internal drainage, consisting of robotic cystgastrostomy (RCG, n = 37), robotic cystjejunostomy (RCJ, n = 13) and robotic fistulojejunostomy (RFJ, n = 7). Surgery was performed a median of 102 (range 28-1153) days following the onset of necrotizing pancreatitis. The median operative time was 187 (91-344) minutes and there were 2 (3.5%) conversions. The median length of hospital stay was 4 (2-38) days. Postoperative morbidity was 11%, and there was one (1.8%) 90-day mortality. At a median follow-up of 5.5 months, 53 (93%) patients had clinical symptom resolution after their index procedure and did not require any reintervention.

CONCLUSION

In select patients, robotic pancreatic necrosectomy and internal drainage is safe and achieves a high single-intervention success rate.

Indian College of Radiology and Imaging Consensus Guidelines on Interventions in Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the common gastrointestinal conditions presenting as medical emergency. Clinically, the severity of AP ranges from mild to severe. Mild AP has a favorable outcome. Patients with moderately severe and severe AP, on the other hand, require hospitalization and considerable utilization of health care resources. These patients require a multidisciplinary management. Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) and arterial bleeding are the most important local complications of pancreatitis. PFCs may require drainage when infected or symptomatic. PFCs are drained endoscopically or percutaneously, based on the timing and the location of collection. Both the techniques are complementary, and many patients may undergo dual modality treatment. Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) remains the most extensively utilized method for drainage in patients with AP and necrotic PFCs. Besides being effective as a standalone treatment in a significant proportion of these patients, PCD also provides an access for percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy and minimally invasive necrosectomy. Endovascular embolization is the mainstay of management of arterial complications in patients with AP and chronic pancreatitis. The purpose of the present guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the percutaneous management of complications of pancreatitis.

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.

A Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Surgical Creation of a Cystogastrostomy to Drain Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis in 5500 Patients

Objective

To determine the success, morbidity, and mortality rates of endoscopic and surgical creation of pancreatic cystenterostomies for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, pseudocysts with necrotic debris, and walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Summary Background Data

Endoscopic methods of cystenterostomy creation to drain pancreatic pseudocysts (with and without necrotic debris) and infected peripancreatic fluid collections are perceived to be less morbid than surgery. Contemporary reports document a very high complication rate with endoscopic methods.

Methods

A meta-analysis of 5500 patients.

Results

Open and laparoscopic surgical techniques to drain chronic pancreatic pseudocysts, infected pancreatic fluid collections, and walled-off pancreatic necrosis are more successful with less morbidity and mortality than endoscopic methods.

Conclusions

In regards to a surgical step-up approach to treat chronic infected pancreatic fluid collections or walled-off pancreatic necrosis, surgical creation of a cystenterostomy is more successful with fewer complications than endoscopic methods and should be given priority if less invasive or conservative methods fail.

Surgical Transgastric Necrosectomy for Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Single-stage Procedure for Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis. Ann Surg. 2018;. [PMID: 30216220 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000003048]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of surgical transgastric necrosectomy (TGN) for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) in selected patients.

BACKGROUND

WON is a common consequence of severe pancreatitis and typically occurs 3 to 5 weeks after the onset of acute pancreatitis. When symptomatic, it can require intervention.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with WON undergoing surgical management at 3 high-volume pancreatic institutions was performed. Surgical indications, intervention timing, technical methodology, and patient outcomes were evaluated. Patients undergoing intervention <30 days were excluded. Differences across centers were evaluated using a P value of <0.05 as significant.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-eight total patients were analyzed (mean WON diameter = 14 cm, 64% male, mean age = 51 years) across 3 centers. The majority required inpatient admission with a median preoperative length of hospital stay of 29 days (25% required preoperative critical care support). Most (96%) patients underwent a TGN. The median duration of time between the onset of pancreatitis symptoms and operative intervention was 60 days. Thirty-nine percent of the necrosum was infected. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 38% and 2%, respectively. The median postoperative length of hospital length of stay was 8 days, with the majority of patients discharged home. The median length of follow-up was 21 months, with 91% of patients having complete clinical resolution of symptoms at a median of 6 weeks. Readmission to hospital and/or a repeat intervention was also not infrequent (20%).

CONCLUSION

Surgical TGN is an excellent 1-stage surgical option for symptomatic WON in a highly selected group of patients. Precise surgical technique and long-term outpatient follow-up are mandatory for optimal patient outcomes.

American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update: Management of Pancreatic Necrosis

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert recommendations regarding the clinical care of patients with pancreatic necrosis and to offer concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 15 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to care for patients with pancreatic necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreatic necrosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition. In situations where clinical expertise may be limited, consideration should be given to transferring patients with significant pancreatic necrosis to an appropriate tertiary-care center. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Antimicrobial therapy is best indicated for culture-proven infection in pancreatic necrosis or when infection is strongly suspected (ie, gas in the collection, bacteremia, sepsis, or clinical deterioration). Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection of sterile necrosis is not recommended. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: When infected necrosis is suspected, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics with ability to penetrate pancreatic necrosis should be favored (eg, carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole). Routine use of antifungal agents is not recommended. Computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration for Gram stain and cultures is unnecessary in the majority of cases. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In patients with pancreatic necrosis, enteral feeding should be initiated early to decrease the risk of infected necrosis. A trial of oral nutrition is recommended immediately in patients in whom there is absence of nausea and vomiting and no signs of severe ileus or gastrointestinal luminal obstruction. When oral nutrition is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or nasojejunal tube should be initiated as soon as possible. Total parenteral nutrition should be considered only in cases where oral or enteral feeds are not feasible or tolerated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Drainage and/or debridement of pancreatic necrosis is indicated in patients with infected necrosis. Drainage and/or debridement may be required in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis and persistent unwellness marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications, including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction; biliary obstruction; recurrent acute pancreatitis; fistulas; or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreatic debridement should be avoided in the early, acute period (first 2 weeks), as it has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Debridement should be optimally delayed for 4 weeks and performed earlier only when there is an organized collection and a strong indication. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Percutaneous drainage and transmural endoscopic drainage are both appropriate first-line, nonsurgical approaches in managing patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Endoscopic therapy through transmural drainage of WON may be preferred, as it avoids the risk of forming a pancreatocutaneous fistula. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic necrosis should be considered in patients with infected or symptomatic necrotic collections in the early, acute period (<2 weeks), and in those with WON who are too ill to undergo endoscopic or surgical intervention. Percutaneous drainage should be strongly considered as an adjunct to endoscopic drainage for WON with deep extension into the paracolic gutters and pelvis or for salvage therapy after endoscopic or surgical debridement with residual necrosis burden. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Self-expanding metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents appear to be superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The use of direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be reserved for those patients with limited necrosis who do not adequately respond to endoscopic transmural drainage using large-bore, self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plastic stents combined with irrigation. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is a therapeutic option in patients with large amounts of infected necrosis, but should be performed at referral centers with the necessary endoscopic expertise and interventional radiology and surgical backup. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Minimally invasive operative approaches to the debridement of acute necrotizing pancreatitis are preferred to open surgical necrosectomy when possible, given lower morbidity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques are feasible and effective, including videoscopic-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic transgastric debridement, and open transgastric debridement. Selection of approach is best determined by pattern of disease, physiology of the patient, experience and expertise of the multidisciplinary team, and available resources. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Open operative debridement maintains a role in the modern management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in cases not amenable to less invasive endoscopic and/or surgical procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: For patients with disconnected left pancreatic remnant after acute necrotizing mid-body necrosis, definitive surgical management with distal pancreatectomy should be undertaken in patients with reasonable operative candidacy. Insufficient evidence exists to support the management of the disconnected left pancreatic remnant with long-term transenteric endoscopic stenting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: A step-up approach consisting of percutaneous drainage or endoscopic transmural drainage using either plastic stents and irrigation or self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and then surgical debridement is reasonable, although approaches may vary based on the available clinical expertise.

Mortality and morbidity in necrotizing pancreatitis managed on principles of step-up approach: 7 years experience from a single surgical unit

AIM

To determine percentage of patients of necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) requiring intervention and the types of interventions performed. Outcomes of patients of step up necrosectomy to those of direct necrosectomy were compared. Operative mortality, overall mortality, morbidity and overall length of stay were determined.

METHODS

After institutional ethics committee clearance and waiver of consent, records of patients of pancreatitis were reviewed. After excluding patients as per criteria, epidemiologic and clinical data of patients of NP was noted. Treatment protocol was reviewed. Data of patients in whom step-up approach was used was compared to those in whom it was not used.

RESULTS

A total of 41 interventions were required in 39% patients. About 60% interventions targeted the pancreatic necrosis while the rest were required to deal with the complications of the necrosis. Image guided percutaneous catheter drainage was done in 9 patients for infected necrosis all of whom required further necrosectomy and in 3 patients with sterile necrosis. Direct retroperitoneal or anterior necrosectomy was performed in 15 patients. The average time to first intervention was 19.6 d in the non step-up group (range 11-36) vs 18.22 d in the Step-up group (range 13-25). The average hospital stay in non step-up group was 33.3 d vs 38 d in step up group. The mortality in the step-up group was 0% (0/9) vs 13% (2/15) in the non step up group. Overall mortality was 10.3% while post-operative mortality was 8.3%. Average hospital stay was 22.25 d.

CONCLUSION

Early conservative management plays an important role in management of NP. In patients who require intervention, the approach used and the timing of intervention should be based upon the clinical condition and local expertise available. Delaying intervention and use of minimal invasive means when intervention is necessary is desirable. The step-up approach should be used whenever possible. Even when the classical retroperitoneal catheter drainage is not feasible, there should be an attempt to follow principles of step-up technique to buy time. The outcome of patients in the step-up group compared to the non step-up group is comparable in our series. Interventions for bowel diversion, bypass and hemorrhage control should be done at the appropriate times.

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.

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.

Minimally Invasive Necrosectomy Techniques in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: Role of Percutaneous Necrosectomy and Video-Assisted Retroperitoneal Debridement

Consensus advocating a principle of early organ support, nutritional optimisation, followed ideally by delayed minimally invasive intervention within a “step-up” framework where possible has radically changed the surgical approach to complications of acute pancreatitis in the last 20 years. The 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classification incorporates these changes, and provides a background which underpins the complexities of individual patient management decisions. This paper discusses the place for delayed minimally invasive surgical intervention (percutaneous necrosectomy, video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD)), and the rationale for opting to adopt a percutaneous approach over endoscopic or laparoscopic approaches in different clinical situations.

Cyst Gastrostomy and Necrosectomy for the Management of Sterile Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis: a Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgical and Endoscopic Outcomes at a High-Volume Pancreatic Center

INTRODUCTION

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) is a sequela of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in 15-40% of cases. We sought to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic cyst gastrostomy (CG) and necrosectomy for the management for sterile WON at a tertiary care high-volume pancreas center.

METHOD

This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic CG and necrosectomy for clinically sterile WON between 2008 and 2013. Peri-procedural outcomes including costs were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent minimally invasive surgical (robotic = 14, laparoscopic = 6) CG and necrosectomy, and 20 patients underwent endoscopic treatment. The surgical cohort had a larger median cyst size and higher CCI score. For the surgical cohort, median OR time was 167.5 min, estimated blood loss was 30 ml, and 65% underwent concomitant cholecystectomy. There was no mortality in either group and no difference in complication rates (20%). The failure rate was similar (15 versus 10%, P = 0.66). Although surgery was associated with a lower re-intervention rate (0 versus 1, P = 0.008), the endotherapy group was associated with shorter total LOS (inclusive of re-interventions) (7 versus 3 days, P = 0.032). The cost of the index procedure was significantly higher for the surgery group (P = 0.014); however, when considering all readmissions and re-interventions until resolution of the WON, the total cost was similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic CG and necrosectomy are comparable treatments for sterile WON in terms of outcomes and overall cost. The surgical approach may be considered advantageous when a concomitant cholecystectomy is required.

Surgical and interventional management of complications caused by acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders worldwide. It requires acute hospitalization, with a reported annual incidence of 13 to 45 cases per 100000 persons. In severe cases there is persistent organ failure and a mortality rate of 15% to 30%, whereas mortality of mild pancreatitis is only 0% to 1%. Treatment principles of necrotizing pancreatitis and the role of surgery are still controversial. Despite surgery being effective for infected pancreatic necrosis, it carries the risk of long-term endocrine and exocrine deficiency and a morbidity and mortality rate of between 10% to 40%. Considering high morbidity and mortality rates of operative necrosectomy, minimally invasive strategies are being explored by gastrointestinal surgeons, radiologists, and gastroenterologists. Since 1999, several other minimally invasive surgical, endoscopic, and radiologic approaches to drain and debride pancreatic necrosis have been described. In patients who do not improve after technically adequate drainage, necrosectomy should be performed. When minimal invasive management is unsuccessful or necrosis has spread to locations not accessible by endoscopy, open abdominal surgery is recommended. Additionally, surgery is recognized as a major determinant of outcomes for acute pancreatitis, and there is general agreement that patients should undergo surgery in the late phase of the disease. It is important to consider multidisciplinary management, considering the clinical situation and the comorbidity of the patient, as well as the surgeons experience.

Laparoscopic transgastric necrosectomy for the management of pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Traditional open necrosectomy for pancreatic necrosis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although minimally invasive techniques have been described and offer some promise, each has considerable limitations. This study assesses the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic transgastric necrosectomy (LTN), a novel technique for the management of necrotizing pancreatitis.

STUDY DESIGN

Between 2009 and 2013, patients with retrogastric pancreatic necrosis requiring debridement were evaluated for LTN. Debridement was performed via a laparoscopic transgastric approach using 2 to 3 ports and the wide cystgastrostomy left open. Patient demographics, disease severity, operative characteristics, and outcomes were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (13 men, median age 54 years; interquartile range [IQR] 46 to 62 years) underwent LTN during the study period. The duration between pancreatitis onset and debridement was 65 days (IQR 53 to 124 years). Indications for operation included infection (7 patients) and persistent unwellness (14 patients). Median duration of LTN was 170 minutes (IQR 136 to 199 minutes); there were no conversions. Control of the necrosis was achieved via the single procedure in 19 of 21 patients. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (IQR 3 to 14 days) and the majority (71%) of patients experienced no (n = 9) or only minor postoperative complications (n = 6) by Clavien-Dindo grade. Complications of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher developed in 6 patients, including 1 death (5%). With a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 7 to 22 months), none of the patients required additional operative debridement or had pancreatic/enteric fistulae or wound complications develop.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic transgastric necrosectomy is a novel, minimally invasive technique for the management of pancreatic necrosis that allows for debridement in a single operation. When feasible, LTN can reduce the morbidity associated with traditional open necrosectomy and avoid the limitations of other minimally invasive approaches.