4.5 Article

Evaluation of hydrogen peroxide-assisted endoscopic ultrasonography-guided necrosectomy in walled-off pancreatic necrosis A single-center experience

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 100, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023175

Keywords

hydrogen peroxide; pancreatic necrosis; walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the use of hydrogen peroxide in endoscopic treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis patients has similar efficacy and safety. Additionally, it was observed that the use of hydrogen peroxide could reduce the number of endoscopic procedures required.
Hydrogen peroxide is a liquid that functions in mechanical removal of the necrotic tissue via the elimination of tissue debris. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of hydrogen peroxide in necrosectomy treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Records of 24 patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic necrosis or walled-off pancreatic necrosis and underwent endoscopic necrosectomy (EN) were retrospectively assessed. Patients were divided into 2 groups; hydrogen peroxide used for treatment or not used, and these 2 groups were compared. A total of 24 patients underwent endoscopic intervention for walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Procedural success was comparable between the 2 groups. During the post-procedural follow-up, the duration of the hospital stay, recurrence, and complication rates were found to be similar in both groups. The mean number of the endoscopic interventions was significantly lower in the hydrogen peroxide group (4.2 +/- 1.4 vs 6.1 +/- 4.2; P = .01). The use of hydrogen peroxide for EN in walled-off pancreatic necrosis patients seems to have similar efficiency and safety. However, it can be said that the use of hydrogen peroxide could reduce the number of endoscopic procedures.

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