4.7 Review

Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy-A Review of the Literature

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11143932

Keywords

necrosis; retroperitoneal access; transmural access; preferred

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article attempts to clarify the role of percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) in the intervention treatment of pancreatic necrosis. A comprehensive review of the current literature is conducted to identify the publications on the role of PEN in patients with consequences of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The study concludes that PEN technique is potentially effective, with an acceptable rate of complications and may be implemented with good clinical results in patients with pancreatic necrosis.
In this article, an attempt was made to clarify the role of percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) in the interventional treatment of pancreatic necrosis. A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed to identify publications on the role of PEN in patients with consequences of acute necrotizng pancreatitis. The aim of the study was to review the literature on minimal invasive necrosectomy, with emphasis on PEN using esophageal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). The described results come from 15 studies after a review of the current literature. The study group comprised 52 patients (36 men and 16 women; mean age, 50.87 (13-75) years) with walled-off pancreatic necrosis, in whom PEN using a self-expandable esophageal stent had been performed. PEN was successfully completed in all 52 patients (100%). PEN complications were observed in 18/52 (34.62%) patients. Clinical success was achieved in 42/52 (80.77%) patients, with follow-up continuing for an average of 136 (14-557) days. In conclusion, the PEN technique is potentially effective, with an acceptable rate of complications and may be implemented with good clinical results in patients with pancreatic necrosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available