This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Outcomes after implementing a tailored endoscopic step‐up approach to walled‐off necrosis in acute pancreatitis. BJS 2014; 101: 1729-1738.
Published: 21st October 2014
Authors: J. Y. Bang, B. A. Holt, R. H. Hawes, M. K. Hasan, J. P. Arnoletti, J. D. Christein et al.
Background
The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients with pancreatic or peripancreatic walled‐off necrosis by endoscopy using the conventional approach
Method
This was an observational before–after study of consecutive patients managed over two time intervals. In the initial period (2004–2009) symptomatic patients with walled‐off necrosis underwent conventional single transmural drainage with placement of two stents and a nasocystic catheter, followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy, if required. In the later period (2010–2013) an algorithmic approach was adopted based on size and extent of the walled‐off necrosis and stepwise response to intervention. The main outcome was treatment success, defined as a reduction in walled‐off necrosis size to 2 cm or less on
Results
Forty‐seven patients were treated in the first interval and 53 in the second. There was no difference in patient demographics, clinical or walled‐off necrosis characteristics and laboratory parameters between the groups, apart from a higher proportion of women and Caucasians in the later period. The treatment success rate was higher for the algorithmic approach compared with conventional treatment (91
Conclusion
An algorithmic approach to pancreatic and peripancreatic walled‐off necrosis, based on the collection size, location and stepwise response to intervention, resulted in an improved rate of treatment success compared with conventional endoscopic management.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Systematic review
Authors: L. Scholten, T. F. Stoop, M. Del Chiaro, O. R. Busch, C. van Eijck, I. Q. Molenaar et al.
Original article
Authors: S. Lof, A. L. Moekotte, B. Al‐Sarireh, B. Ammori, S. Aroori, D. Durkin et al.
Systematic review
Authors: M. Tanaka, A. L. Mihaljevic, P. Probst, M. Heckler, U. Klaiber, U. Heger et al.
Original article
Authors: G. Berardi, D. Aghayan, Å. A. Fretland, H. Elberm, F. Cipriani, A. Spagnoli et al.
Original article
Authors: W. Jung, T. Park, Y. Kim, H. Park, Y. Han, J. He et al.
Original article
Authors: B. Garlipp, P. Gibbs, G. A. Van Hazel, R. Jeyarajah, R. C. G. Martin, C. J. Bruns et al.
Systematic review
Authors: X.‐Y. Wang, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Geng, J. Lin, K. Ma et al.
Original article
Authors: S. Otsuka, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, T. Mizuno, J. Yamaguchi et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Filmann, D. Walter, E. Schadde, C. Bruns, T. Keck, H. Lang et al.
Original article
Authors: Å. A. Fretland, V. J. Dagenborg, G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv, D. L. Aghayan, A. M. Kazaryan, L. Barkhatov et al.
Original article
Authors: B. V. van Rosmalen, A. J. Klompenhouwer, J. Jaap de Graeff, M. P. D. Haring, V. E. de Meijer, L. Rifai et al.
Original article
Authors: A. Pulvirenti, A. Pea, N. Rezaee, C. Gasparini, G. Malleo, M. J. Weiss et al.