4.5 Article

Five-Year Cohort Study of Open Pancreatic Necrosectomy for Necotizing Pancreatitis Suggests It Is a Safe and Effective Operation

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 17, Issue 9, Pages 1634-1642

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-013-2288-0

Keywords

Pancreatitis; Acute necrotizing; Digestive system surgical procedures; Reoperation; Postoperative complications; Treatment failure

Funding

  1. Key Clinical Program of the MoH of China [2007353]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite advances in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis, open necrosectomy remains an important management option for necrotizing pancreatitis, and patients undergoing necrosectomy suffer significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of open necrosectomy from a recent large cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Data are reported from a cohort of 276 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis who underwent open surgical debridement. Nutritional status, nutritional methods, bleeding, infection, demarcation of necrotic tissues, and time from onset of disease were scored. Scores a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 10 were considered as an indication for debridement. One hundred sixty-two (58.7 %) and 52 (18.8 %) patients underwent minimally invasive peritoneal and retroperitoneal drainage, respectively, before necrosectomy. Median delay from disease onset to debridement was 48 days. Fifty-five patients (19.9 %) underwent more than one operation; 352 operations were performed in total. There were 17 deaths (6.2 %) postoperatively. This study demonstrated the results for open debridement in a recent large cohort of patients. Although minimally invasive necrosectomy has been developed in recent years, open necrosectomy remains an important approach for the debridement of necrotizing pancreatitis effectively and safely.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available