RESUMO
Background Management of acute necrotising pancreatitis is often challenging for clinicians. Secondary infection of the necrotic collections leads to sepsis and warrants intervention. Minimally invasive techniques like catheter drainage have recently been proposed over more risky and morbid traditional open procedures. Factors that can predict successful catheter drainage of the necrotic pancreatic collection are still unclear and not well established. Materials and methods This study is designed as a retrospective cross-sectional observational study to investigate the association of 21 factors in predicting successful catheter drainage. Data from 30 patients admitted with acute necrotising pancreatitis treated with catheter drainage were collected and analysed. Twenty-one factors, including demographic variables, disease severity factors, drainage criteria, and morphological criteria on imaging, were studied for their predictive association with successful outcomes. Univariate analysis was done for each variable against the outcome. The study was conducted between December 2012 to March 2017. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Patients with no organ involvement responded better to primary catheter drainage. Patients with BMI>25 and multi-organ failure were poor candidates for primary catheter drainage. Clinically unwell patients with a Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score of ≥4 had a negative outcome on catheter drainage and usually ended up in a surgical procedure or eventually succumbed to the disease. Other variables included in our study did not statistically associate with the success or failure of percutaneous catheter drainage. Conclusion BMI >25, multiple organ failure, and BISAP score ≥ 4 are independent negative predictors for the success of catheter drainage in infected necrotising pancreatitis. No organ failure showed a positive predictor for successful catheter drainage. Further studies are required to explore these predictive factors in a larger sample size to predict the success of catheter drainage in infected pancreatic necrosis.
RESUMO
Background Postoperative pain control irrespective of the magnitude of surgery has always remained a challenge for clinicians and healthcare workers. Good postoperative pain control is pivotal for unremarkable recovery and shorter hospital stays. Unfortunately, there is no uniform approach across the globe to address postoperative pain control. This provoked our thought to conduct a prospective observational study in our center to assess the already existing efficacy of pain management. Materials and methods This is a prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care center in Coimbatore, India. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of an ongoing pain management system to compare it with standards in the literature to introduce changes and re-examine the results. A total of 100 patients who underwent major surgical procedures from various specialities were included after satisfying the inclusion criteria. The study was conducted over a period of four months to collect data from patients in the postoperative ward. Data were collected, pain-related variables were tabulated, and deficits were identified. Standardized pain assessment tools were not used. The results suggested the need for a policy change for quality improvement. This article gives reports on initial study results and plans to address the deficits in the current pain management system. A systematic and schematic approach for the implementation of the policy change and the framework for the new acute pain service team aiming at quality improvement have been discussed in detail. Results The results show that 28 patients were prescribed only routine paracetamol and rescue nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). At rest, 56 patients had some pain, and 29 complained of moderate to severe pain. On movement, only seven patients had no pain, 48 had mild pain, and 45 had moderate to severe pain. Only 12 patients out of 100 had good sleep, 27 had moderate, and 43 had little sleep. Twelve patients had no sleep due to continuous ongoing pain in spite of ongoing pain control modalities. Sixteen patients complained of undue delay in receiving their analgesics. Twenty-two patients were dissatisfied, and 44 suggested the need for improvement of current pain control strategies. These data clearly suggest that the pain control strategies are inadequate and need improvement undoubtedly for quality improvement. The Wendy Hirsch model is chosen to create a framework for implementing a new change, and a detailed report is done to present to the hospital quality control department. These changes will be done after the approval, and a post-implementation outcome will be studied. Conclusion Good postoperative pain control is of paramount significance for both patients and healthcare professionals. With the current availability of various pain relief modalities, one should consider establishing a pain control pathway, if possible an acute pain team with a systematic approach. These measures not only improve patient satisfaction but also improve postoperative outcomes and better ways of utilizing healthcare resources.