Medical versus surgical management for emphysematous pancreatic necrosis: is gas within pancreatic necrosis an absolute indication for surgery?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether pancreatic necrosis with presence of gas is an absolute indication for surgery or if there is a possibility for the medical management of this pathology. METHODS: This study is a retrospective study including 56 patients with diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis and gas on computed tomography from April 2003 to March 2011. We recorded all the factors related to each group of treatment, including APACHE II score, C-reactive protein level, Tomographic Severity Index, organ and multiorgan failure, and infected necrosis after fine-needle puncture, to evaluate the differences between surgical and medical treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-six (64%) of these patients were submitted to surgery, whereas 20 (36%) were managed conservatively. Twenty-eight patients (78%) who underwent surgery had infected necrosis. Thirty-five percent of the patients (7 patients) in the medical group had organ failure versus 83% of the patients in the surgical group. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic necrosis with gas on computed tomography is a relative indication for surgery. Medical management is a feasible and safe possibility for this pathology in selected cases. The presence of organ failure and infected necrosis often precludes a surgical treatment.

[Impact of duodenopancreatectomy in elder patients]. / Impacto de la duodenopancreatectomía en los pacientes adultos mayores.

UNLABELLED: The incidence of periampullary neoplasms substantially increases with age. If we take into account that this incidence is higher in the elder patient and that life expectancy is nowadays longer, questioning surgical approach in this group of patients turns out to be controversial. OBJECTIVE: [corrected] Asses if in the elder patients the duodenopancreatectomy has a higher mortality and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study including patients who underwent duodenopancreatectomy between October 2002 and June 2012 was undertaken to assess whether the elder ones had a higher morbidity and mortality after surgery. Patients were distributed in two groups according to age. The first group included 240 patients younger than 75 years, and the second one included 74 patients older than 75 years. There wasn't NO significant difference in morbidity between the two groups. RESULTS: General mortality for the whole series was 4%. The first group had a 2.9% mortality whereas in the second one mortality reached 4.9%, a significant difference. However, when we changed the reference age from 75 years to 65 or 70 years the difference was not significant any more. CONCLUSION: From this study we can ascertain that an age more than 75 years significantly increases the mortality risk in duodenopancreatectomy patients. This age, however, doesn't proscribe surgical approach, since surgery is the only choice for curative treatment in patients with this type of cancer.

Impacto de la duodenopancreatectomía en los pacientes adultos mayores / Impact of duodenopancreatectomy in elder patients

La incidencia de las neoplasias peri ampulares se incrementa sustancialmente con la edad, teniendo en cuenta que la incidencia de estas neoplasias se presenta mucho más en pacientes mayores y que la expectativa de vida cada vez es más alta es muy difícil cuestionar la cirugía en este grupo de pacientes. Objetivo: Evaluar la conveniencia de realizar una duodenopancreatectomía en los pacientes adultos mayores y si ésta presenta mayores complicaciones y mortalidad en este grupo de pacientes. Materiales y métodos: Durante el periodo comprendido entre octubre del 2002 hasta junio del 2012 se realizó un estudio retrospectivo en 314 pacientes sometidos a una duodenopancreatectomía para evaluar si los pacientes ancianos presentaban una mayor morbilidad y mortalidad luego de esta cirugía. Se distribuyó a los pacientes en dos grupos de acuerdo a la edad. En el primero se incluyeron a 240 pacientes que eran menores de 75 años y en el segundo se incluyeron a 74 pacientes mayores de 75 años. No existió diferencia significativa en la morbilidad de los dos grupos. Resultados: La mortalidad general en toda la serie fue de 4%. En el primer grupo la mortalidad fue de 2,9% mientras que en el segundo grupo subió a 9,4% ,siendo esta diferencia significativa. Sin embargo, cuando redujimos la edad de comparación a 65 años y a 70 años pudimos comprobar que la diferencia ya no fue significativa. Conclusion: Luego de este estudio podemos afirmar que la edad mayor de 75 años aumenta el riesgo de mortalidad de manera significativa en los pacientes sometidos a una duodenopancreatectomía, pero no contraindica la cirugía ya que es la única opción para tratar de curar a una paciente con este tipo de cáncer.

The incidence of periampullary neoplasms substantially increases with age. If we take into account that this incidence is higher in the elder patient and that life expectancy is nowadays longer, questioning surgical approach in this group of patients turns out to be controversial. Objetive: Asses if in the elder patients the duodenopancreatectomy has a higher mortality and complications. Materials and methods: A retrospective study including patients who underwent duodenopancreatectomy between October 2002 and June 2012 was undertaken to assess whether the elder ones had a higher morbidity and mortality after surgery. Patients were distributed in two groups according to age. The first group included 240 patients younger than 75 years, and the second one included 74 patients older than 75 years. There wasn't NO significant difference in morbidity between the two groups. Results: General mortality for the whole series was 4%. The first group had a 2.9% mortality whereas in the second one mortality reached 4.9%, a significant difference. However, when we changed the reference age from 75 years to 65 or 70 years the difference was not significant any more. Conclusion: From this study we can ascertain that an age more than 75 years significantly increases the mortality risk in duodenopancreatectomy patients. This age, however, doesn't proscribe surgical approach, since surgery is the only choice for curative treatment in patients with this type of cancer.

¿Es la anastomosis pancreato yeyunal de Peng más efectiva que la anastomosis muco-mucosa en la duodenopancreatectomía por neoplasias de páncreas y periampulares? / Is Peng's pancreaticojejunal anastomosis more effective than mucosa-mucosa anastomosis in duodenopancreatectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumours?

Introducción La fístula pancreática es la complicación más temida luego de una duodenopancreatectomía, siendo el factor independiente de mortalidad postoperatoria más frecuente. Recientemente Peng et al. publicaron una técnica de anastomosis pancreato yeyunal «anastomosis por atadura» (binding anastomosis) que presentaba 0% de fístula pancreática. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar y validar esta nueva técnica de anastomosis comparada con la anastomosis pancreato yeyunal termino-lateral ducto mucosa convencional (PYTL-C).Material y método Se efectuó un estudio prospectivo no aleatorizado para evaluar y validar esta nueva técnica de anastomosis comparada con la anastomosis pancreato yeyunal termino-lateral convencional. Se incluyó a 63 pacientes a quienes se les realizó una duodenopancreatectomía por presentar una neoplasia pancreática o periampular, intervenidos por un mismo cirujano. A 30 pacientes (Grupo A) se les realizó una anastomosis termino-terminal según la técnica descrita por Peng, y a 33 pacientes (Grupo B) se les realizó una anastomosis termino-lateral mucosa-mucosa (técnica convencional).Resultados Cuando se compararon las 2 técnicas, la fístula pancreática se presentó en 2/30 pacientes (6,6%) con anastomosis de Peng y en 4/33 pacientes (12%) con anastomosis mucosa-mucosa, sin embargo esto no fue significativo (p=0,674). Además cuando se comparó la morbilidad, estancia hospitalaria y mortalidad tampoco existió diferencia significativa entre los 2 grupos. Conclusión Los resultados de este estudio muestran que la anastomosis descrita por Peng es un método seguro, pero que no está asociada a una menor frecuencia de fístula pancreática, morbilidad general, ni mortalidad, por lo cual se puede poner en duda si realmente presenta una ventaja sobre otras técnicas (AU)

Introduction The pancreatic fistula is the most feared complication after a duodenopancreatectomy, and is the most common independent factor of post-surgical mortality. Peng et al. recently published a pancreaticojejunal anastomosis technique (binding anastomosis) which showed 0% pancreatic fistulas. The objective of this study is to evaluate and validate this new anastomosis technique compared with the conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy with end-to-side duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. Material and method A prospective, non-randomised study was conducted to evaluate and validate this new anastomosis technique compared with the conventional pancreaticojejunal terminolateral duct to mucosa anastomosis. The study included 63 patients who were subjected to a duodenopancreatectomy due to having a pancreatic or periampullary neoplasm. A binding pancreaticojejunostomy according to the technique described by Peng et al. was performed on 30 patients (Group A), and a pancreaticoduodenectomy with end-to-side duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (conventional technique) was performed on 33 patients (Group B).Results When the results of the 2 techniques were compared, 2/30 (6%) of patients had a pancreatic fistula with the Peng technique, and 4/33 (12%) with the conventional technique, but this was not statistically significant (P=.674). Nor were there any significant differences between the 2 groups on comparing, morbidity, hospital stay and mortality. Conclusion The results of this study show that the anastomosis method described by Peng is safe, but is not associated with a lower frequency of pancreatic fistula, general morbidity, or mortality. This leads to the uncertainty of whether it really has any advantages over other techniques (AU)

[Is Peng's pancreaticojejunal anastomosis more effective than mucosa-mucosa anastomosis in duodenopancreatectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumours?]. / ¿Es la anastomosis pancreato yeyunal de Peng más efectiva que la anastomosis muco-mucosa en la duodenopancreatectomía por neoplasias de páncreas y periampulares?

INTRODUCTION: The pancreatic fistula is the most feared complication after a duodenopancreatectomy, and is the most common independent factor of post-surgical mortality. Peng et al. recently published a pancreaticojejunal anastomosis technique (binding anastomosis) which showed 0% pancreatic fistulas. The objective of this study is to evaluate and validate this new anastomosis technique compared with the conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy with end-to-side duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective, non-randomised study was conducted to evaluate and validate this new anastomosis technique compared with the conventional pancreaticojejunal terminolateral duct to mucosa anastomosis. The study included 63 patients who were subjected to a duodenopancreatectomy due to having a pancreatic or periampullary neoplasm. A binding pancreaticojejunostomy according to the technique described by Peng et al. was performed on 30 patients (Group A), and a pancreaticoduodenectomy with end-to-side duct-to-mucosa anastomosis (conventional technique) was performed on 33 patients (Group B). RESULTS: When the results of the 2 techniques were compared, 2/30 (6%) of patients had a pancreatic fistula with the Peng technique, and 4/33 (12%) with the conventional technique, but this was not statistically significant (P=.674). Nor were there any significant differences between the 2 groups on comparing, morbidity, hospital stay and mortality. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the anastomosis method described by Peng is safe, but is not associated with a lower frequency of pancreatic fistula, general morbidity, or mortality. This leads to the uncertainty of whether it really has any advantages over other techniques.

[Evaluation and validation of surgical indications in acute pancreatitis with necrosis, at the National Hospital Edgardo Rebagliati Martins]. / Evaluación y validación de las indicaciones quirúrgicas en la pancreatitis aguda con necrosis, en el Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate efficacy of the surgical indications in acute pancreatitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the period from May 2000 to June 2009, 107 operated patients with pancreatic necrosis were treated in the Severe Acute Pancreatitis Unit of the HNERM a comparison was made by separating the patients in two groups according to the surgical indication. An analysis was carried out in order to evaluate which type of surgical indication has the best results according to age, severity of the case, return to oral intake, hospital stay, complications and mortality. RESULTS: On evaluating the indication by positive puncture for detecting necrosis infection we found that 89% of the patients operated due to this indication showed infected necrosis while those operated due to the indication of "sepsis without response to the ICU treatment" only reached 51%. Surgical complications and re operations, was higher among the patients whose indication was "sepsis without response to the ICU treatment" (Indication B) in comparison with positive FNA. (Indication A) CONCLUSION: Positive fine needle aspiration is the surgical indication par excellence in acute pancreatitis with necrosis. We consider that the indication of "sepsis that do not respond for more than 72 hours to treatment in the ICU regardless that negative FNA" should not be taken into account, due to the very high percentage of sterile necrosis found at the time of surgery.

Evaluación y validación de las indicaciones quirúrgicas en la pancreatitis aguda con necrosis, en el Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins / Evaluation and validation of surgical indications in acute pancreatitis with necrosis, at the National Hospital Edgardo Rebagliati Martins

OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la eficacia de las indicaciones quirúrgicas en la pancreatitis aguda. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Durante el periodo comprendido entre Mayo del 2000 a Junio del 2009 se realizo un estudio de manera prospectiva donde se incluyo a 107 pacientes con Pancreatitis aguda grave con necrosis que fueron operados en la Unidad de Pancreatitis del Hospital Rebagliati. Se dividió a los pacientes de acuerdo a la indicación quirúrgica recibida. Indicación A: Aquellos pacientes que fueron operados por presentar punción por aguja fina positiva (PAF) Indicación B: Pacientes operados por presentar sepsis en ausencia de foco infeccioso extra pancreático. RESULTADOS: Cuando evaluamos la efectividad de cada indicación quirúrgica para detectar infección de la necrosis pancreática pudimos observar que cuando se opero al paciente utilizando la indicación quirúrgica A el 89% presentaban necrosis pancreática infectada, mientras que cuando se utilizo la indicación B solo se encontró infección de la necrosis pancreática en el 51% de los casos (p=0.001). Por lo tanto cuando se utilizo la primera indicación solo el 11% de los operados presento una necrosis estéril mientras que cuando usamos la indicación B operamos por ôerrorõ de esta a un 48% de pacientes que no tenían una indicación quirúrgica por no presentar una necrosis infectada. CONCLUSIONES: La punción por aguja fina es la indicación quirúrgica por excelencia en la pancreatitis aguda grave con necrosis descartando a la indicación de ôSepsisõ en ausencia de foco infeccioso extra pancreático que no responde al tratamiento en UCI por más de 72 horas (indicación B), ya que no es una adecuada indicación porque nos induce a operar pacientes que no tienen una real indicación quirúrgica (necrosis estéril) debido a que estos pacientes pueden ser manejados médicamente.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate efficacy of the surgical indications in acute pancreatitis MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the period from May 2000 to June 2009, 107 operated patients with pancreatic necrosis were treated in the Severe Acute Pancreatitis Unit of the HNERM a comparison was made by separating the patients in two groups according to the surgical indication. An analysis was carried out in order to evaluate which type of surgical indication has the best results according to age, severity of the case, return to oral intake, hospital stay, complications and mortality. RESULTS: On evaluating the indication by positive puncture for detecting necrosis infection we found that 89% of the patients operated due to this indication showed infected necrosis while those operated due to the indication of sepsis without response to the ICU treatment only reached 51%. Surgical complications and re operations, was higher among the patients whose indication was sepsis without response to the ICU treatment (Indication B) in comparison with positive FNA. (Indication A) CONCLUSION: Positive fine needle aspiration is the surgical indication par excellence in acute pancreatitis with necrosis. We consider that the indication of sepsis that do not respond for more than 72 hours to treatment in the ICU regardless that negative FNA should not be taken into account, due to the very high percentage of sterile necrosis found at the time of surgery.