[Direct transfistulous ultrasound in minimally invasive surgical treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis]. / Pryamoe chresfistul'noe ul'trazvukovoe issledovanie pri minimal'no invazivnom khirurgicheskom lechenii patsientov s infitsirovannym pankreonekrozom.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a method for direct transfistulous ultrasound in minimally invasive treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 148 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis between 2015 and 2019 at the Krasnodar City Clinical Hospital No. 2. Drainage with 28-32 Fr tubes was carried out at the first stage, endoscopic transfistulous sequestrectomy - at the second stage (19 (12.8%) patients). In 84 (56.8%) patients, we applied original diagnostic method (transfistulous ultrasonic assessment of inflammatory focus). RESULTS: There were 3 accesses to omental bursa in 93 (62.8%) patients and 2 in 43 (29.1%) patients. We also performed 2 access to retroperitoneal space in 63 (42.6%) patients and 1 access in 38 (25.8%) cases. Transfistulous ultrasound was used once in 19 (22.6%) patients, twice in 28 (33.3%) and 3 times in 37 (44.1%) patients. Examination was not performed in 18 (12.2%) patients due to the following reasons: migration of drainage catheters - 5, non-rectilinear fistulous tract - 13. No complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Transfistulous ultrasound makes it possible to diagnose pathological changes in the pancreas and parapancreatic tissue at various stages of surgical treatment.

Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Debridement and Drainage for Pancreatic Abscess.

In patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis, pancreatic necrosis and secondary infection of surrounding tissues can quickly spread to the whole retroperitoneal space. Treatment of pancreatic abscess complicating necrotizing pancreatitis is difficult and has a high mortality rate. The well-accepted treatment strategy is early debridement of necrotic tissues, drainage, and postoperative continuous retroperitoneal lavage. However, traditional open surgery has several disadvantages, such as severe trauma, interference with abdominal organs, a high rate of postoperative infection and adhesion, and hardness with repeated debridement. The retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach has the advantages of minimal invasion, a better drainage route, convenient repeated debridement, and avoidance of the spread of retroperitoneal infection to the abdominal cavity. In addition, retroperitoneal drainage leads to fewer drainage tube problems, including miscounting, displacement, or siphon. The debridement and drainage of pancreatic abscess tissue via the retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach plays an increasingly irreplaceable role in improving patient prognosis and saving healthcare resources and costs. The main procedures described here include laying the patient on the right side, raising the lumbar bridge and then arranging the trocar; establishing the pneumoperitoneum and cleaning the pararenal fat tissues; opening the lateral pyramidal fascia and the perirenal fascia outside the peritoneal reflections; opening the anterior renal fascia and entering the anterior pararenal space from the rear; clearing the necrotic tissue and accumulating fluid; and placing drainage tubes and performing postoperative continuous retroperitoneal lavage.

Laparoscopic necrosectomy for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: mesocolon-preserving approach and outcomes.

The surgical treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis has significantly evolved in recent years with the advent of enhanced imaging techniques and minimally invasive surgery. Various minimally invasive techniques, such as video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) and endoscopic transmural necrosectomy (ETN), have been employed in the management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis and are often part of step-up approaches. However, almost all reported step-up approaches only employ a fixed minimally invasive technique prior to open surgery. In contrast, we implemented different minimally invasive techniques during the treatment of acute pancreatitis based on the extent of pancreatic necrosis. For acute necrotizing pancreatitis of the pancreatic bed with or without extension into the left retroperitoneum, we performed mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy for debridment. The quantitative indication for pancreatic debridment in our institute has been described previously. For acute necrotizing pancreatitis of the pancreatic bed with or without extension into the left retroperitoneum, mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy was performed for debridment. To safeguard the mesocolon, the pancreatic bed was entered via the gastrocolic ligament, and the left retroperitoneum was accessed via the lateral peritoneal attachments of the descending colon. Of the 77 patients requiring pancreatic debridment, 41 patients were deemed suitable for mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy by multiple disciplinary team and informed consent was acquired. Of these 41 patients, 27 underwent percutaneous drainage, 10 underwent transluminal drainage, and 2 underwent transluminal necrosectomy prior to laparoscopic necrosectomy. Two patients (4.88%) died of sepsis, three patients (7.32%) required further laparotomic necrosectomy, and five patients (12.20%) required additional percutaneous drainage for residual infection. Three patients (7.32%) experienced duodenal fistula, all of which were cured through non-surgical treatments. Nineteen patients (46.34%) developed pancreatic fistula that persisted for over 3 weeks, with 17 being successfully treated non-surgically. The remaining two patients had pancreatic fistulas that lasted over 3 months; an internal drainage procedure has been planned for them. No patient developed colonic fistula. Mesocolon-preserving laparoscopic necrosectomy proved to be safe and effective in selected patients. It can serve as a supplementary procedure for step-up approaches or as an alternative to other debridment procedures such as VARD, ETN, and laparotomic necrosectomy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Not All Queries Are Already Solved.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are well-known complications of acute pancreatitis. The overinfection of these collections leads to a worsening of the prognosis with an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate. The primary strategy for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) or symptomatic PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided (EUS-guided) transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Different stents are available to drain PFCs: self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), double pigtail stents (DPPSs), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). In particular, LAMSs are useful when direct endoscopic necrosectomy is needed, as they allow easy access to the necrotic cavity; however, the rate of adverse events is not negligible, and to date, the superiority over DPPSs is still debated. Moreover, the timing for necrosectomy, the drainage technique, and the concurrent medical management are still debated. In this review, we focus attention on indications, timing, techniques, complications, and particularly on aspects that remain under debate concerning the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

A New Step-Up Dual Endoscopic Approach for Large-Size Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy Followed by Transluminal Endoscopic Drainage/Necrosectomy.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis in 10% to 20% of cases can be associated with necrosis of the pancreatic gland, peripancreatic tissue, or both. We report a case series of a new endoscopic approach to treat infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with IPN, extending from the perigastric area up to the paracolic gutters or into the pelvis, were prospectively studied from January 2017 to June 2022. The treatment protocol was radiologic percutaneous drainage as the first step, followed by fully covered metal stent placement (FC-SEMS) in the track of the catheter. Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) was performed 2 to 4 days later using a flexible endoscope through the percutaneous tract. About 2 to 4 weeks later, when a matured sac was visible, EUS-guided endoscopic transluminal drainage (ETD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) was performed. Control of sepsis with resolution of collection(s) was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: We included 18 patients, males in 50% of cases with age 60±12 years old. Most frequent cause of pancreatitis was biliary (7 cases) followed by alcoholic in 6 cases; in 3 cases pancreatitis was caused by hyperlipemia and in 2 cases was idiopathic. Mean size of WON was 18±2 cm. For PEN, SEMSs used were esophageal FC-SEMS. LAMS used for ETD were Hot Axios, Hot Spaxus and Nagistent. Mean time of endoscopic intervention for PEN and ETD was 18±3 and 37±4 days, respectively. In 5 cases adverse events occurred: 3 cases of overinflations resolved with introduction of Verres needles in abdomen. In 2 cases postprocedural GI bleeding required endoscopic intervention. In all cases control of sepsis was reached together with resolution of collections. No cases of deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Step-up percutaneous and transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy therapy is an effective strategy for large-size IPN with combined central and peripheral necrosis.

Endoscopic and surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis-a comparison of short- and long-term outcome.

BACKGROUND: Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is still related to high morbidity and mortality rates. Minimal-invasive treatment options, such as endoscopic necrosectomy, may decrease peri-interventional morbidity and mortality. This study aims to compare the initial operative with endoscopic treatment on long-term parameters, such as endocrine and exocrine functionality, as well as mortality and recurrence rates. METHODS: We included 114 patients, of whom 69 were treated with initial endoscopy and 45 by initial surgery. Both groups were further assessed for peri-interventional and long-term parameters. RESULTS: In the post-interventional phase, patients in the group of initial surgical treatment (IST) showed significantly higher rates of renal insufficiency (p < 0.001) and dependency on invasive ventilation (p < 0.001). The in-house mortality was higher in the surgical group, with 22% vs. 10.1% in the group of patients following initial endoscopic treatment (IET; p = 0.077). In long-term follow-up, the overall mortality was 45% for IST and 31.3% for IET (p = 0.156). The overall in-hospital stay and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were significantly shorter after IET (p < 0.001). In long-term follow-up, the prevalence of endocrine insufficiency was 50% after IST and 61.7% after IET (p = 0.281). 57.1% of the patients following IST and 16.4% of the patients following IET had persistent exocrine insufficiency at that point (p = < 0.001). 8.9% of the IET and 27.6% of the IST patients showed recurrence of acute pancreatitis (p = 0.023) in the long-term phase. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, an endoscopic step-up approach led to a reduced in-hospital stay and peri-interventional morbidity. The endocrine function appeared comparable in both groups, whereas the exocrine insufficiency seemed to recover in the endoscopic group in the long-term phase. These findings advocate for a preference for endoscopic treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis whenever feasible.

Is Contemporary Open Pancreatic Necrosectomy Still Useful In The Minimally Invasive Era?

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that open pancreatic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis was associated with high morbidity and mortality. However, these results were mostly concluded from historical cohorts with traditional early necrosectomy in the absence of a minimally invasive step-up approach. OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of contemporary open pancreatic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis in the minimally invasive era. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed in a prospective maintained database of 320 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis from January 2011 to December 2022 at a large Chinese tertiary hospital. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis received either a minimally invasive step-up approach (245, 76.6%) or open pancreatic necrosectomy (75, 23.4%), which included upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy (32, 10.0%) and salvage open pancreatic necrosectomy (43, 13.4%). Upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy was associated with similar morbidity and mortality rates but fewer surgical interventions compared with a minimally invasive step-up approach. However, salvage open pancreatic necrosectomy was associated with significantly higher mortality (48.8% vs 18.8%, P = .007), gastrointestinal fistula (44.2% vs 18.8%, P = .021), hemorrhage (48.8% vs 15.6%, P = .003), and intensive care unit stay (25 vs 7 days, P = .040) compared with upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy. Multivariate analysis suggested that multiple organ failure (hazard ratio = 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-18.2, P = .013) and synchronous critical acute pancreatitis (hazard ratio = 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-8.6, P = .040) were 2 independent risk factors of death for patients who received open pancreatic necrosectomy. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy received fewer surgical interventions with comparable efficacy compared to the minimally invasive step-up approach. Salvage open pancreatic necrosectomy was potentially lifesaving, though it carried high morbidity and mortality. Multiple organ failure and synchronous critical acute pancreatitis were 2 independent risk factors of death for patients who received open pancreatic necrosectomy.

Long-term follow-up study of necrotising pancreatitis: interventions, complications and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term consequences of necrotising pancreatitis, including complications, the need for interventions and the quality of life. DESIGN: Long-term follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort of 373 necrotising pancreatitis patients (2005-2008) was performed. Patients were prospectively evaluated and received questionnaires. Readmissions (ie, for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis), interventions, pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life were compared between initial treatment groups: conservative, endoscopic/percutaneous drainage alone and necrosectomy. Associations of patient and disease characteristics during index admission with outcomes during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range 12-15.5 years), 97/373 patients (26%) were readmitted for recurrent pancreatitis. Endoscopic or percutaneous drainage was performed in 47/373 patients (13%), of whom 21/47 patients (45%) were initially treated conservatively. Pancreatic necrosectomy or pancreatic surgery was performed in 31/373 patients (8%), without differences between treatment groups. Endocrine insufficiency (126/373 patients; 34%) and exocrine insufficiency (90/373 patients; 38%), developed less often following conservative treatment (p<0.001 and p=0.016, respectively). Quality of life scores did not differ between groups. Pancreatic gland necrosis >50% during initial admission was associated with percutaneous/endoscopic drainage (OR 4.3 (95% CI 1.5 to 12.2)), pancreatic surgery (OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 9.5) and development of endocrine insufficiency (OR13.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 32.0) and exocrine insufficiency (OR6.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 15.5) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries a substantial disease burden during long-term follow-up in terms of recurrent disease, the necessity for interventions and development of pancreatic insufficiency, even when treated conservatively during the index admission. Extensive (>50%) pancreatic parenchymal necrosis seems to be an important predictor of interventions and complications during follow-up.

The First Successful Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Caused by Severe Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Case Report.

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only life-saving option when acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) does not improve with conservative therapy. Acute pancreatitis (AP) can cause chronic liver disease progression to ACLF. However, deceased donor LT for patients with AP has had mixed results, and no consensus has been established regarding the indication for LT. We report the first successful living donor LT (LDLT) for ACLF caused by severe AP. The 38-year-old patient with alcoholic liver disease was transferred to our institute with worsening refractory ascites. During the pretransplant workup, she developed severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis, resulting in grade 3 ACLF. The patient's clinical course was further complicated by high levels of donor-specific antibodies and immune thrombocytopenia. The AP gradually improved after intensive care combined with artificial liver support. The patient successfully underwent urgent LDLT with upfront splenectomy and desensitization therapy, including plasm exchange, high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, and anti-thymocyte globulin. No infection or recurrence of AP was observed postoperatively. We conclude that LDLT is a feasible option for ACLF patients caused by severe AP if a deceased donor is not readily available.

Treatment of walled-off necrosis using lumen-apposing metal stents versus plastic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Walled-off necrosis (WON) is highly morbid disease most effectively managed by endoscopic drainage with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) or plastic stents, with or without necrosectomy. This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of patients included in randomized trials treated using LAMSs or plastic stents. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify all data collected from randomized trials comparing LAMSs and plastic stents for the treatment of WON. The primary outcome measure was need for endoscopic necrosectomy. RESULTS: Three studies comprising 206 patients met inclusion criteria. Except for procedure duration, which was significantly shorter for LAMSs (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.22, 95%CI -1.64 to -0.79), there was no significant difference in need for necrosectomy (38.5% vs. 41.2%; risk ratio [RR] 1.07, 95%CI 0.79-1.45), number of interventions (SMD -0.09, 95%CI -0.40 to 0.22), treatment success (90.7% vs. 94.5%; RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.87-1.06), recurrence (4.6% vs. 0.6%; RR 3.73, 95%CI 0.42-33.0), readmission (42.6% vs. 50.2%; RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.62-1.14), length of hospitalization (SMD -0.06, 95%CI -0.55 to 0.43), mortality (8.5% vs. 9.8%; RR 0.70, 95%CI 0.30-1.66), new-onset organ failure (10.6% vs. 14.6%; RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.16-3.32), bleeding (11.0% vs. 10.7%; RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.34-3.44), procedural adverse events (23.6% vs. 19.2%; RR 1.38, 95%CI 0.82-2.33), or overall costs (SMD -0.04, 95%CI -0.31 to 0.24) between LAMSs and plastic stents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Except for procedure duration, there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes for patients with WON treated using LAMSs or plastic stents.

Novel powered 5.0-mm endoscopic debridement catheter for endoscopic transmural necrosectomy of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: a case series of consecutive patients from a tertiary referral center (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided drainage and, if required, endoscopic necrosectomy (EN) has become the criterion standard for the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). A dedicated powered endoscopic debridement system, the EndoRotor (Interscope Inc, Northbridge, Mass, USA), has been introduced as an alternative to snare necrosectomy. This study evaluates the novel EndoRotor catheter, NecroMax 6.0 (Interscope Inc, Whitinsville, Mass, USA), for EN in patients with WON. METHODS: This single-center retrospective case series included consecutive patients with WON treated with the NecroMax 6.0 catheter. Safety, ability to perform EN, and clinical resolution were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent 30 EN procedures with the NecroMax 6.0 catheter. One suspected device-related adverse event was observed (3.3%). In 1 procedure, EN could not be performed because of excessive bending of the endoscope. Eighteen patients (90.0%) achieved clinical resolution. CONCLUSIONS: EN with the NecroMax 6.0 catheter was technically feasible in 96.7% of patients with a low rate of adverse events.

Contemporary management of acute pancreatitis: What you need to know.

ABSTRACT: Acute pancreatitis and management of its complications is a common consult for the acute care surgeon. With the ongoing development of both operative and endoscopic treatment modalities, management recommendations continue to evolve. We describe the current diagnostic and treatment guidelines for acute pancreatitis through the lens of acute care surgery. Topics, including optimal nutrition, timing of cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis, and the management of peripancreatic fluid collections, are discussed. Although the management severe acute pancreatitis can include advanced interventional modalities including endoscopic, percutaneous, and surgical debridement, the initial management of acute pancreatitis includes fluid resuscitation, early enteral nutrition, and close monitoring with consideration of cross-sectional imaging and antibiotics in the setting of suspected superimposed infection. Several scoring systems including the Revised Atlanta Criteria, the Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis score, and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade have been devised to classify and predict the development of the severe acute pancreatitis. In biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy prior to discharge is recommended in mild disease and within 8 weeks of necrotizing pancreatitis, while early peripancreatic fluid collections should be managed without intervention. Underlying infection or ongoing symptoms warrant delayed intervention with technique selection dependent on local expertise, anatomic location of the fluid collection, and the specific clinical scenario. Landmark trials have shifted therapy from maximally invasive necrosectomy to more minimally invasive step-up approaches. The acute care surgeon should maintain a skill set that includes these minimally invasive techniques to successfully manage these patients. Overall, the management of acute pancreatitis for the acute care surgeon requires a strong understanding of both the clinical decisions and the options for intervention should this be necessary.

Metal stent and percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy as dual approach for the management of complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are one of the local complications of acute pancreatitis and include walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), which are complex entities with challenging management. The infection of pancreatic necrosis leads to a poorer prognosis, with a growth of the mortality rate up to 30%. The primary strategy for managing PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Percutaneous drainage (PCD) can be the technique of choice when endoscopic drainage is not feasible, for example for early PFCs without a mature wall or for the anatomic location and extension to the paracolic gutter of the collection. As PCD alone may be ineffective, especially when a great amount of necrosis is present, a percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) has been proposed, showing interesting results. The technique consists of the placement of an esophageal fully or partially covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) percutaneously into the collection and a direct debridement can be performed using a flexible endoscope through the SEMS. In this review, we will discuss about the role of metal stent and PEN for the management of complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or step-up endoscopic approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis (DESTIN): a single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the preferred management approach for patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis is endoscopic transluminal stenting followed by endoscopic necrosectomy as step-up treatment if there is no clinical improvement, the optimal timing of necrosectomy is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between performing upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention versus as a step-up measure in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. METHODS: This single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial (DESTIN) was done at six tertiary care hospitals (five hospitals in the USA and one hospital in India). We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed or suspected infected necrotising pancreatitis with a necrosis extent of at least 33% who were amenable to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. By use of computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size four), eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or endoscopic step-up treatment. Endoscopists were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants, research coordinators, and the statistician were. Lumen-apposing metal stents (20 mm diameter; 10 mm saddle length) were used for drainage in both groups. In the upfront group, direct necrosectomy was performed immediately after stenting in the same treatment session. In the step-up group, direct necrosectomy or additional drainage was done at a subsequent treatment session if there was no clinical improvement (resolution of any criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis or one or more organ failure and at least a 25% percentage decrease in necrotic collection size) 72 h after stenting. The primary outcome was the number of reinterventions per patient to achieve treatment success from index intervention to 6 months' follow-up, which was defined as symptom relief in conjunction with disease resolution on CT. Reinterventions included any endoscopic or radiological procedures performed for necrosectomy or additional drainage after the index intervention, excluding the follow-up procedure at 4 weeks for stent removal. All endpoints and safety were analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05043415 and NCT04113499, and recruitment and follow-up have been completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2019, and Oct 26, 2022, 183 patients were assessed for eligibility and 70 patients (24 [34%] women and 46 [66%] men) were randomly assigned to receive upfront necrosectomy (n=37) or step-up treatment (n=33) and included in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of index intervention, seven (10%) of 70 patients had organ failure and 64 (91%) patients had walled-off necrosis. The median number of reinterventions was significantly lower for upfront necrosectomy (1 [IQR 0 to 1] than for the step-up approach (2 [1 to 4], difference -1 [95% CI -2 to 0]; p=0·0027). Mortality did not differ between groups (zero patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs two [6%] in the step-up group, difference -6·1 percentage points [95% CI -16·5 to 4·5]; p=0·22), nor did overall disease-related adverse events (12 [32%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs 16 [48%] patients in the step-up group, difference -16·1 percentage points [-37·4 to 7·0]; p=0·17), nor procedure-related adverse events (four [11%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs eight [24%] patients in the step-up group, difference -13·4 percentage points [-30·8 to 5·0]; p=0·14). INTERPRETATION: In stabilised patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and fully encapsulated collections, an approach incorporating upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention rather than as a step-up measure could safely reduce the number of reinterventions required to achieve treatment success. FUNDING: None.

[A modified method for percutaneous drainage of acute necrotic collections in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis]. / Modifitsirovannyi metod chreskozhnogo drenirovaniya ostrykh nekroticheskikh skoplenii u patsientov s infitsirovannym pankreonekrozom.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a modified method for percutaneous drainage of acute necrotic collections in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Minimally invasive surgical technologies were used in 74 patients with infected acute necrotic collections at the Krasnodar Regional Clinical Hospital No. 2 between 2017 and 2019. Of these, 59 (79.7%) people underwent percutaneous drainage as a final treatment. In 11 (14.9%) patients, video sequestrectomy through the fistula was additionally used to increase efficiency of percutaneous drainage. RESULTS: PCD in our modification implies delivery of double-lumen drains 26-32 Fr in the same plane to zones of necrosis, their programmed replacement for prevention of obstruction and flexible endoscopy for control of pathological process. Local purulent-necrotic parapancreatitis occurred in 31 (41.9%) patients, widespread parapancreatitis - in 43 (58.1%) patients. There were 339 minimally invasive interventions. Laparotomy was required in 4 (5.4%) patients. Incidence of perioperative complications was 10.6%, mortality - 16.2%. CONCLUSION: A modified percutaneous drainage method may be used as final surgical treatment in 79.7% of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

[Influence of early surgery and endoscopic interventions on the risk of infection in patients with pancreatic necrosis]. / Vliyanie rannikh operativnykh i endoskopicheskikh vmeshatel'stv na risk infitsirovaniya u patsientov s pankreonekrozom.

OBJECTIVE: To prevent purulent-septic complications in patients with destructive pancreatitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort study included 488 patients with pancreatic necrosis: group 1 (n=331) - active surgical strategy, group 2 (n=157) - follow-up and therapy. We used binary logistic regression to predict purulent-septic complications. RESULTS: Original model of independent variables significantly (p<0.001) revealed 5.3 times higher risk of infectious complications after laparotomy within the first week after hospitalization. Incidence of these events increased by 2.8 times in patients biliary pancreatitis compared to alcohol-alimentary pancreatitis. Complication rate was higher in older patients (by 2.1% for each year). Risk of purulent-septic complications decreased by 57.4% in women compared to men. There was no significant correlation between risk of infectious complications and endoscopic procedures. Specificity and sensitivity of the model was 74.2 and 72.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Original model significantly predicts the risk of purulent-septic complications within the first week after hospitalization. Refusal of early active surgical strategy in these patients will significantly reduce the likelihood of purulent-septic complications.

Endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments. METHODS: We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.