Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Following an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis. DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25-P75: 46-222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)). CONCLUSION: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.

Isolated left vertebral artery and its consequences for aortic arch repair.

A left vertebral artery (LVA) originating directly from the aortic arch is the second most common supra-aortic branching anomaly. This isolated LVA can also terminate in the posterior inferior cerebellar artery without contributing to the circle of Willis, limiting treatment options, especially in cases with an incomplete circle. Here, we describe our consideration of the treatment options for a 79-year-old patient with a large distal aortic arch aneurysm combined with an isolated LVA and incomplete circle of Willis that may endanger adequate (intraoperative) cerebral perfusion.

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study. METHODS: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores. RESULTS: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P = .005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P = .004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P = .03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P = .99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P = .43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions.

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking. DESIGN: We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to <35%; and very high: ≥35%). RESULTS: Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectomy.

Risk of Pancreatic Cancer After a Primary Episode of Acute Pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute pancreatitis may be the first manifestation of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of pancreatic cancer after a first episode of acute pancreatitis. METHODS: Between March 2004 and March 2007, all consecutive patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis were prospectively registered. Follow-up was based on hospital records audit, radiological imaging, and patient questionnaires. Outcome was stratified based on the development of chronic pancreatitis. RESULTS: We included 731 patients. The median follow-up time was 55 months. Progression to chronic pancreatitis was diagnosed in 51 patients (7.0%). In this group, the incidence rate per 1000 person-years for developing pancreatic cancer was 9.0 (95% confidence interval, 2.3-35.7). In the group of 680 patients who did not develop chronic pancreatitis, the incidence rate per 1000 person-years for developing pancreatic cancer in this group was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.3-3.3). Hence, the rate ratio of pancreatic cancer was almost 9 times higher in patients who developed chronic pancreatitis compared with those who did not (P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Although a first episode of acute pancreatitis may be related to pancreatic cancer, this risk is mainly present in patients who progress to chronic pancreatitis.

The tibiopedal retrograde vascular access for challenging popliteal and below-the-knee chronic total occlusions: literature review and description of the technique.

In recent years, the retrograde tibiopedal approach is increasingly being used for revascularization of complex chronic total occlusions of infrainguinal arteries to bailout those cases where a guidewire was not possible to pass through the lesion from antegrade and therefore the treatment would have failed. The present popularity of this technique is in contrast to the paucity of data published so far. Nevertheless, from the reports that are available and from the authors' experience we conclude that it is not only a successful but also a safe technique. This article attempts to summarize the development of this technique, present the available data and to give some recommendations on how to perform a tibiopedal retrograde intervention.

Results From a Nationwide Registry on Scalloped Thoracic Stent-Grafts for Short Landing Zones.

PURPOSE: To report the perioperative results and short-term follow-up of patients treated with scalloped thoracic stent-grafts. METHODS: A multicenter registry in the Netherlands captured data on 30 patients (mean age 68 years; 17 men) with thoracic aortic pathology and a short (<20 mm) proximal or distal landing zone who received a custom-made scalloped stent-graft between January 2013 and February 2016. Patients were treated for saccular (n=13) aneurysms, fusiform (n=9) aneurysms, pseudoaneurysms (n=4), or chronic type B dissections (n=4). The scallop was used to preserve flow in the left subclavian artery (LSA) (n=17), left common carotid artery (n=5), innominate artery (n=1), and celiac trunk (n=7). In 7 (23%) patients, the scallop also included the adjacent artery. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 28 (93%) patients. In 1 patient, a minor type Ia endoleak was observed intraoperatively, which was no longer visible on computed tomography angiography at 3 months. In another patient, the LSA was unintentionally obstructed due to migration of the stent-graft on deployment. Concomitant carotid-carotid or carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 4 patients. There was no retrograde type A dissection or conversion to open surgery. In-hospital mortality was 3%, and the perioperative ischemic stroke rate was 3%. At a mean follow-up of 9.7 months (range <1 to 31), 29 of 30 target vessels were patent. CONCLUSION: The scalloped stent-graft appears to be a safe and relatively simple alternative for the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with short landing zones. Larger patient series and long-term follow-up are required to confirm these early results.

Evidence-based Guidelines for the Management of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) after pancreatic surgery. BACKGROUND: EPI is a common complication after pancreatic surgery but there is certain confusion about its frequency, optimal methods of diagnosis, and when and how to treat these patients. METHODS: Eighteen multidisciplinary reviewers performed a systematic review on 10 predefined questions following the GRADE methodology. Six external expert referees reviewed the retrieved information. Members from Spanish Association of Pancreatology were invited to suggest modifications and voted for the quantification of agreement. RESULTS: These guidelines analyze the definition of EPI after pancreatic surgery, (one question), its frequency after specific techniques and underlying disease (four questions), its clinical consequences (one question), diagnosis (one question), when and how to treat postsurgical EPI (two questions) and its impact on the quality of life (one question). Eleven statements answering those 10 questions were provided: one (9.1%) was rated as a strong recommendation according to GRADE, three (27.3%) as moderate and seven (63.6%) as weak. All statements had strong agreement. CONCLUSIONS: EPI is a frequent but under-recognized complication of pancreatic surgery. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the definition, diagnosis, and management of EPI after pancreatic surgery.

Risk of Recurrent Pancreatitis and Progression to Chronic Pancreatitis After a First Episode of Acute Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis can develop recurrent or chronic pancreatitis (CP). However, little is known about the incidence or risk factors for these events. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 669 patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis admitted to 15 Dutch hospitals from December 2003 through March 2007. We collected information on disease course, outpatient visits, and hospital readmissions, as well as results from imaging, laboratory, and histology studies. Standardized follow-up questionnaires were sent to all available patients to collect information on hospitalizations and interventions for pancreatic disease, abdominal pain, steatorrhea, diabetes mellitus, medications, and alcohol and tobacco use. Patients were followed up for a median time period of 57 months. Primary end points were recurrent pancreatitis and CP. Risk factors were evaluated using regression analysis. The cumulative risk was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Recurrent pancreatitis developed in 117 patients (17%), and CP occurred in 51 patients (7.6%). Recurrent pancreatitis developed in 12% of patients with biliary disease, 24% of patients with alcoholic etiology, and 25% of patients with disease of idiopathic or other etiologies; CP occurred in 3%, 16%, and 10% of these patients, respectively. Etiology, smoking, and necrotizing pancreatitis were independent risk factors for recurrent pancreatitis and CP. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores at admission also were associated independently with recurrent pancreatitis. The cumulative risk for recurrent pancreatitis over 5 years was highest among smokers at 40% (compared with 13% for nonsmokers). For alcohol abusers and current smokers, the cumulative risks for CP were similar-approximately 18%. In contrast, the cumulative risk of CP increased to 30% in patients who smoked and abused alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a retrospective analysis of patients admitted to Dutch hospitals, a first episode of acute pancreatitis leads to recurrent pancreatitis in 17% of patients, and almost 8% of patients progress to CP within 5 years. Progression was associated independently with alcoholic etiology, smoking, and a history of pancreatic necrosis. Smoking is the predominant risk factor for recurrent disease, whereas the combination of alcohol abuse and smoking produces the highest cumulative risk for chronic pancreatitis.

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. METHODS: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). DISCUSSION: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Predicting Success of Catheter Drainage in Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

INTRODUCTION: At least 30% of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis are successfully treated with catheter drainage alone. It is currently not possible to predict which patients also need necrosectomy. We evaluated predictive factors for successful catheter drainage. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 130 prospectively included patients undergoing catheter drainage for (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association between success of catheter drainage (ie, survival without necrosectomy) and 22 factors regarding demographics, disease severity (eg, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score, organ failure), and morphologic characteristics on computed tomography (eg, percentage of necrosis). RESULTS: Catheter drainage was performed percutaneously in 113 patients and endoscopically in 17 patients. Infected necrosis was confirmed in 116 patients (89%). Catheter drainage was successful in 45 patients (35%). In multivariable regression, the following factors were associated with a reduced chance of success: male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.55; P <0.01), multiple organ failure (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04-0.62; P < 0.01), percentage of pancreatic necrosis (<30%/30%-50%/>50%: OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.96; P = 0.03), and heterogeneous collection (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.67; P < 0.01). A prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76. A prognostic nomogram yielded success probability of catheter drainage from 2% to 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex, multiple organ failure, increasing percentage of pancreatic necrosis and heterogeneity of the collection are negative predictors for success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis. The constructed nomogram can guide prognostication in clinical practice and risk stratification in clinical studies.

Endovenous laser ablation of insufficient perforating veins: Energy is key to success.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and anatomical success of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of incompetent perforating veins (IPV). METHODS: All 135 consecutive patients with IPV treated with ELVA (intention-to-treat) from January 2008 to December 2013 were included. Up to the end of 2011, an 810-nm laserset (14 W) was used, and afterwards, a 1470-nm laserset (6 W) was introduced. Duplex ultrasound was performed at 6 weeks' follow-up to assess anatomical success. RESULTS: Overall anatomical success at 6 weeks' follow-up was 56%. Anatomical success was 63% after treatment with 810 nm and 45% with 1470 nm (p = 0.035). This difference in the success rate seems associated with the significantly higher amount of energy delivered in the 810 nm cohort (560 J) versus 1470 nm (186 J). Regardless of the type of laser, anatomical success was significantly higher after treatment with more than 400 J (66%) compared with 0-200 J (40%, p = 0.009) and 200-400 J (43%, p = 0.029). Complications were limited to two cases of transient paresthesia. CONCLUSIONS: EVLA of IPVs is safe and feasible. The amount of energy is highly important in achieving anatomical success.

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

Re-interventions following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: data from 818 individuals from the Dutch surgical colorectal audit.

BACKGROUND: The surgical procedure of choice for the resection of colorectal cancer has shifted in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Although increasing data prove advantages of elective laparoscopic surgery, less is known about the results in acute indications such as surgical re-interventions following colorectal resections. This study aims to assess the clinical benefits in recovery following laparoscopic re-interventions compared with open re-interventions following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We performed an analysis of data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit from January 2010 to December 2012. All patients requiring surgical re-intervention after initial laparoscopic colorectal surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 27,448 patients, 11,856 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Following laparoscopic surgery, 159 patients (1.3%) had a laparoscopic re-intervention, and 659 patients (5.6%) had an open re-intervention. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for patients' demographics and risk factors, the length of hospital stay was 17 days (interquartile range, 11-16 days) for the laparoscopic group and 23 days (interquartile range, 14-37 days) for the open group (odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.84). In the laparoscopic group the intensive care unit admission rate was 39% compared with 66% in the open group. The 30-day mortality rate was 7 (4%) in the laparoscopic group compared with 89 (14%) in the open group (OR=0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is feasible in selected patients. Because of the unknown extent of selection bias, prospective studies are needed to define the exact position and benefits of laparoscopic re-interventions.

Minimally invasive intervention for infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis.

Infected necrosis is the main indication for invasive intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The 2013 IAP/APA guidelines state that percutaneous catheter drainage should be the first step in the treatment of infected necrosis. In 50-65% of patients, additional necrosectomy is required after catheter drainage, which was traditionally done by open necrosectomy. Driven by the perceived lower complication rate, there is an increasing trend toward minimally invasive percutaneous and endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. The authors present an overview of current minimally invasive treatment options for necrotizing pancreatitis and review recent developments in clinical studies.

Treatment options for chronic pancreatitis.

This Review covers the latest developments in the treatment options for chronic pancreatitis. Pain is the most frequent and dominant symptom in patients with chronic pancreatitis, which ranges from severe disabling continuous pain to mild pain attacks and pain-free periods. Conventional treatment strategies and recent changes in the treatment of pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis are outlined. The different treatment options for pain consist of medical therapy, endoscopy or surgery. Their related merits and drawbacks are discussed. Finally, novel insights in the field of genetics and microbiota are summarized, and future perspectives are discussed.

Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to assess the outcome of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis with additional focus on indication, disease severity, and methodological quality of studies. DESIGN: We searched the literature published between January 2005 and June 2013. Cohorts, including patients with (infected) necrotising pancreatitis, undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy were included. Indication, disease severity, and methodological quality were described. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, number of endoscopic sessions, and definitive successful treatment with endoscopic necrosectomy alone. RESULTS: After screening 581 papers, 14 studies, including 455 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. All included studies were retrospective analyses except for one randomized, controlled trial. Overall methodological quality was moderate to low (mean 5, range 2-9). Less than 50 % of studies reported on pre-procedural severity of disease: mean APACHE-II score before intervention was 8; organ failure was present in 23 % of patients; and infected necrosis in 57 % of patients. On average, four (range 1-23) endoscopic interventions were performed per patient. With endoscopic necrosectomy alone, definitive successful treatment was achieved in 81 % of patients. Mortality was 6 % (28/460 patients) and complications occurred in 36 % of patients. Bleeding was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy is an effective treatment for the majority of patients with necrotising pancreatitis with acceptable mortality and complication rates. It should be noted that methodological quality of the available studies is limited and that the combined patient population of endoscopically treated patients is only moderately ill.