Treatment Of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis Research Articles

Appropriate Use of Antibiotics in Acute Pancreatitis: A Scoping Review.

While selective use of antibiotics for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in acute pancreatitis (AP) is recommended, studies indicate a high rate of inadequate treatment. A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was conducted, focusing on primary research and meta-analyses. Data were categorized based on core concepts, and a narrative synthesis was performed. The search identified a total of 1016 publications. After evaluating 203 full texts and additional sources from the grey literature, 80 studies were included in the review. The answers obtained were: (1) Preventive treatment does not decrease the incidence of IPN or mortality. Given the risks of bacterial resistance and fungal infections, antibiotics should be reserved for highly suspected or confirmed IPN; (2) The diagnosis of IPN does not always require microbiological samples, as clinical suspicion or computed tomography signs can suffice. Early diagnosis and treatment may be improved by using biomarkers such as procalcitonin and novel microbiological methods; (3) When indicated, early initiation of antibiotics is a key determinant in reducing mortality associated with IPN; (4) Antibiotics with good penetration into pancreatic tissue covering Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria should be used. Routine antifungal therapy is not recommended; (5) The step-up approach, including antibiotics, is the standard for IPN management; (6) Antibiotic duration should be kept to a minimum and should be based on the quality of source control and patient condition. Early antibiotic therapy is essential for the treatment of IPN, but prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended in AP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are required to better understand the role of antibiotics and antifungals in AP management.

LOCAL ANTIBACTERIAL TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH INFECTED PANCREATIC WALLED-OFF NECROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Introduction. Systemic antibacterial treatment in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis often fails to resolve the infection due to impaired penetration in necrotic areas. The endoscopic step-up approach based on endoscopic transmural drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy has become the standard of care in patients who do not respond to systemic antibiotics. The additional local administration of antibiotics may increase their concentration in necrotic tissue. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of local infusion of antibacterial agents to the site of infection in addition to systemic treatment after endoscopic drainage to resolve the infection and decrease the need for necrosectomy in patients with walled-off infected pancreatic necrosis. Materials and methods. Major databases were searched for clinical studies assessing the efficacy of local perfusion of antibiotics for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. Results. Four studies were included, two cohort studies and two single-case reports. The majority of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis developed polymicrobial infection. More than one-third of patients additionally had fungal infection. Local irrigation of antibiotics in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis resulted in the eradication of bacteria and fungi, avoiding necrosectomy in almost half of cases. No local or systemic side effects were reported with this strategy. Conclusions. Evidence evaluating the efficacy of local antibiotics for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis is scarce. Simultaneous local and systemic administration of antibiotics after endoscopic drainage could reduce the need for necrosectomy. Randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the impact of adding local to systemic antibiotics in the prognosis of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Direct transfistulous ultrasound in minimally invasive surgical treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis

To develop a method for direct transfistulous ultrasound in minimally invasive treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. 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). 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. Transfistulous ultrasound makes it possible to diagnose pathological changes in the pancreas and parapancreatic tissue at various stages of surgical treatment.

Advances in acute and chronic pancreatitis.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) and chronic pancreatitis are the third leading gastrointestinal causes for admissions and readmissions to hospitals in the United States. This review of articles published between 2019-2022 (December) from international sources identified four categories of crucial new findings: The report includes (1) New genetic pathogenic mutations (TRPV6); expected genetic outcomes in a Northern European population; (2) a new serum diagnostic marker for AP-fatty acid ethyl esters-distinguishing acute pancreatitis associated with alcohol; explanations of the impact of monocytes/macrophages on the inflammatory process that defines their future in diagnosis, staging, and treatment; (3) innovations in timing of per os low-fat, solid food intake immediately on admission; resolution of concepts of aggressive parenteral fluid intake; dramatic shifts to non-operative from operative treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. Each modification reduced interventions, complications, and lengths-of-stay; and (4) authoritarian recommendations for medical treatment of chronic pain. These advances offer opportunities to initiate newly proven treatments to enhance outcomes, alter the natural history, and envision the future of two diseases that have no known cure.

Imaging classification and analysis of the diagnosis and treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis:a report of 126 cases

Objective: To explore the clinical characteristics of various types of infected pancreatic necrosis(IPN) and the prognosis of different treatment methods in the imaging classification of IPN proposed. Methods: The clinical data of 126 patients with IPN admitted to the Department of Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from December 2018 to December 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. There were 70 males(55.6%) and 56 females(44.4%), with age(M(IQR)) of 44(17)years (range: 12 to 87 years). There were 67 cases(53.2%) of severe acute pancreatitis and 59 cases (46.8%) of moderately severe acute pancreatitis. All cases were based on the diagnostic criteria of IPN. All cases were divided into Type Ⅰ(central IPN)(n=21), Type Ⅱ(peripheral IPN)(n=23), Type Ⅲ(mixed IPN)(n=74) and Type Ⅳ(isolated IPN)(n=8) according to the different sites of infection and necrosis on CT.According to different treatment strategies,they were divided into Step-up group(n=109) and Step-jump group(n=17). The clinical indicators and prognosis of each group were observed and analyzed by ANOVA,t-test,χ2 test or Fisher exact test,respectively. Results: There was no significant difference in mortality, complication rate and complication grade in each type of IPN(all P>0.05). Compared with other types of patients, the length of stay (69(40)days vs. 19(19)days) and hospitalization expenses(323 000(419 000)yuan vs. 60 000(78 000)yuan) were significantly increased in Type Ⅳ IPN(Z=-4.041, -3.972; both P<0.01). The incidence of postoperative residual infection of Type Ⅳ IPN was significantly higher than that of other types (χ2=16.350,P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the mortality of patients with different types of IPN between different treatment groups. The length of stay and hospitalization expenses of patients in the Step-up group were significantly less than those in the Step-jump group(19(20)days vs. 33(35)days, Z=-2.052, P=0.040;59 000(80 000)yuan vs. 122 000(109 000)yuan,Z=-2.317,P=0.020). Among the patients in Type Ⅳ IPN, the hospitalization expenses of Step-up group was significantly higher than that of Step-jump group(330 000(578 000)yuan vs. 141 000 yuan,Z=-2.000,P=0.046). The incidence of postoperative residual infection of Step-up group(17.4%(19/109)) was significantly lower than that of Step-jump group(10/17)(χ2=11.980, P=0.001). Conclusions: Type Ⅳ IPN is more serious than the other three types. It causes longer length of stay and more hospitalization expenses. The step-up approach is safe and effective in the treatment of IPN. However, for infected lesions which are deep in place,difficult to reach by conventional drainage methods, or mainly exhibit "dry necrosis", choosing the step-jump approach is a more positive choice.

Basic principles,methods and evaluation of minimally invasive treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis

Infected pancreatic necrosis(IPN) is the main surgical indication of acute pancreatitis. Minimally invasive debridement has become the mainstream surgical strategy of IPN,and it is only preserved for IPN patients who are not response for adequate non-surgical treatment. Transluminal or retroperitoneal drainage is preferred,and appropriate debridement can be performed. At present,it is reported that video assisted transluminal,trans-abdominal and retroperitoneal approaches can effectively control IPN infection. However,in terms of reducing pancreatic leakage and other complications,surgical and endoscopic transgastric debridement may be the future direction in the treatment of IPN.

Complex Application of Minimally Invasive Methods for the Treatment of Complicated Acute Severe Pancreatitis

Percutaneous interventions for the purpose of sanation of cavities of pancreatogenic destruction can be one of the ways to treat pancreatic necrosis. This leads to a rapid cleansing of the cavities and is an objective method of monitoring the stages of treatment. We present a case of successful treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis using minimally invasive, percutaneous, X-ray endovascular methods. Procedures performed: superselective embolization of the upper and lower pancreaticoduodenal arteries, embolization of the gastroduodenal artery, embolization of the splenic artery, selective catheterization and embolization of the left gastric artery with microemboli and coils.

Timing, approach, and treatment strategies for infected pancreatic necrosis: a narrative review

Timing, approach, and treatment strategies for infected pancreatic necrosis: a narrative review

Transabdominal self-expandable metal stent placement as a rescue therapy for drainage of walled-off necrosis.

Video 1CT scan of a walled-off necrosis in the right pararenal space extended to the iliac area.

Treatment choices for infected pancreatic necrosis:surgery debridement or endoscopy drainage?

Infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is a crucial reason for the poor prognosis of patients with acute pancreatitis,which is complicated and difficult to predict the outcomes. Surgery is an important way to cure IPN,and "step-up approach" is the mainstream mode of IPN treatment. In the era of minimally invasive surgery,the full course endoscopic treatment of IPN has been gradually hot and achieved good outcomes as endoscopic technology' improvement. However,it is controversial that whether technique is better for IPN by surgery debridement or endoscopy drainage,and there is no consensus on the scope of applicability and the timing of intervention. The paper aims to explore the intervention methods,indications and timing of endoscopic and surgical treatment of IPN and elaborate the selection strategies of them in clinical practice,so as to develop individualized treatment options,accurately implement minimally invasive intervention and improve the prognosis.

\u201cOne-step\u201d approach versus \u201cStep-up\u201d approach minimally invasive treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis: a study protocol for a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCurrently, the minimally invasive “Step-up” surgical strategy is still the main treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). However, indiscriminate implementation of the “Step-up” strategy can lead to increased numbers of operations and prolonged hospital stay. The “Step-up” approach is not appropriate for some patients due to unavailabilty of a safe puncture path. Therefore, we developed the “One-step” surgical approach to treat IPN, which is safety. However, there is still a lack of comparison of the short and long-term efficacy between the “One-step” and “Step-up” approach. Consequently, we are conducting this clinical trial to provide a reference for IPN treatment.MethodsThis is an ongoing, single-center, randomized controlled trial of patients with IPN. The total sample size required for the trial (May 2021–December 2023) is approximately 128 patients. Patients will be randomly assigned to either an experimental group (One-step) or a control group (Step-up) at a ratio of 1:1 using the block randomization method. We used the case report forms and electronic data capture systems to obtain demographic information, preoperative laboratory examination, auxiliary examination results, surgery data, postoperative recovery outcomes, and follow-up outcomes. The patients will be followed up for 2 years after surgery. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint, consisting of mortality and severe complications. The secondary endpoints include the incidence of organ dysfunction, the number of surgical procedures, mortality (the incidence of death in hospital and deaths within 30 days of discharge), hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, hospitalization costs, perioperative inflammatory marker changes, and short-and long-term complications.DiscussionCompared with the “Step-up,” the “One-step” minimally invasive surgery can significantly reduce the number of operations, reduce the length of hospital stay and hospitalization costs without increasing the incidence of composite endpoint events, and has better short- and long-term efficacy and safety. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in perioperative complications and mortality between “Step-up” and “One-step”. This study will assist with the formulation of an effective and scientific “One-step” minimally invasive treatment strategy for IPN, and an understanding of this technique will facilitate clinical decision-making for IPN.Trial Registration ChiCTR2100044348. Trial status: Ongoing.

The Step up Approach in the Management of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: A Case Report

Approximately 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis develop the severe form. Treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis has changed over the past 20 years and continues to evolve with increasing experience, new techniques, and research. The “Step Up Approach” consists of the successive placement of drains of progressively greater caliber, it has demonstrated, since the publication of the PANTER study, its superiority over the classical surgical approach in terms of morbidity. In up to 35% of cases, the episode will be resolved only in this way, in the rest of patients, the pancreatic cell will be debrided. We present the case of a patient with a diagnosis of severe acute pancreatitis and infected pancreatic necrosis who was managed with the now popular “step up” approach 28-year-old male with dyslipidemic origin, with necrosis pancreatic, peripancreatic collections, and gas in retroperitoneum, treated with TPN, pancreatin (CREON) and antibiotic therapy (Imipenem). He developed infected necrosis that required drainage with two 12 Fr and 14 Fr pigtails (25th day-hospitalization), with ultrasound-guided access in the right flank and left flank. Catheter replacement and progressive increase in diameter were performed, followed by RPVA necrosectomy following the path of the left pigtail (th day-hospitalization). The evolution was favorable, with progressive withdrawal of drains, and discharge without drains on day 65 of hospitalization. The "Step Up Approach" is the current standard in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis, it is effective and safe, avoiding the serious complications of open necrosectomy, with a good recovery of the patient.

Transfistulous endoscopic sequestrectomy in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis

To develop an effective minimally invasive method for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. There were 168 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis who were treated at the Regional Clinical Hospital No. 2 between 2011 and 2018. Eighty-seven (51.8%) patients underwent primary drainage with large-diameter double-lumen drains 28-32 Fr, and original technique of transfistulous endoscopic sequestrectomy was used. Puncture-drainage interventions with transfistulous endoscopic sequestrectomy were used in 23 (26.4%) patients with local and 64 (73.6%) patients with widespread purulent-necrotic parapancreatitis. Percutaneous channels are accesses to purulent-necrotic cavity and used for transfistulous endoscopic sequestrectomy. This procedure was performed 98 times. Time of primary sanitation in patients with 3 accesses in omental bursa was significantly less compared to 2 accesses (62±4.3 vs. 89±8.2 min, p<0.05). In case of repeated sanitation, time of intervention did not depend on the number of accesses. Incidence of local complications was 9.1%, extra-abdominal complications - 19.4%. Mortality rate was 12.6%. Original technique of transfistulous endoscopic sequestrectomy increases efficiency of sanitation of infected parapancreatitis, improves treatment outcomes and reduces mortality to 12.3%.

Comparison of safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up between "one-step" and "step-up" approaches for infected pancreatic necrosis.

BACKGROUNDAlthough the “Step-up” strategy is the primary surgical treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis, it is not suitable for all such patients. The “One-step” strategy represents a novel treatment, but the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up have not yet been compared between these two approaches.AIMTo compare the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up of two surgical approaches to provide a reference for infected pancreatic necrosis treatment.METHODSThis was a retrospective analysis of infectious pancreatic necrosis patients who underwent “One-step” or “Step-up” necrosectomy at Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, from May 2014 to December 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of severe complications or death. Patients were followed up every 6 mo after discharge until death or June 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0 and GraphPad Prism 8.0, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.RESULTSOne-hundred-and-fifty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 61 patients underwent “One-step” necrosectomy and 97 patients underwent “Step-up” necrosectomy. During the long-term follow-up period, 40 patients in the “One-step” group and 63 patients in the “Step-up” group survived. The time from disease onset to hospital admission (53.69 ± 38.14 vs 32.20 ± 20.75, P < 0.001) and to initial surgical treatment was longer in the “Step-up” than in the “One-step” group (54.38 ± 10.46 vs 76.58 ± 17.03, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent “Step-up” necrosectomy had a longer hospitalization duration (65.41 ± 28.14 vs 52.76 ± 24.71, P = 0.02), and more interventions (4.26 ± 1.71 vs 3.18 ± 1.39, P < 0.001). Postoperative inflammatory indicator levels were significantly lower than preoperative levels in each group. Although the incisional hernia incidence was higher in the “One-step” group, no significant difference was found in the composite outcomes of severe complications or death, new-onset organ failure, postoperative complications, inflammatory indicators, long-term complications, quality of life, and medical costs between the groups (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONCompared with the “Step-up” approach, the “One-step” approach is a safe and effective treatment method with better long-term quality of life and prognosis. It also provides an alternative surgical treatment strategy for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Experience in the implementation of a modified step-up approach in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis

Aim.Analysis of the results of the application of the modified step-up approach in the treatment of infected pancreatonecrosis in a third-level hospital.Materials and methods.The study included 52 patients over 18 years of age with acute pancreatitis and suspected or proven infection with pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis .The control group included 27 patients who underwent primary open necrectomy. The comparison group included 25 patients who underwent surgical treatment within the framework of the modified concept of the stepwise surgical approach (Step-up). In the groups compared mortality rates, early postoperative complications (IIIb-IVb grade Clavien-Dindo), late postoperative complications (ventral hernias, pseudocysts, diabetes mellitus), the duration of inpatient treatment, and the duration of treatment in the intensive care unit. The indicator "Full return to primary social activity after treatment" was also proposed.Results.In the Step-up approach group, in comparison with the control group, there was a decrease in the overall incidence of postoperative complications of IIIb-IVb grade Clavien-Dindo (24% and 51.9%, respectively, p &lt;0.05), the frequency of arrosive bleeding (0% and 14 , 8%, respectively, p &lt;0.05), the need for necrsequestrectomy (64 and 100%, respectively, p &lt;0.01), the total average duration of treatment in the intensive care unit (3.2 ± 0.6 and 9.2 ± 1.6 days, respectively, p &lt;0.05), and the average duration of treatment in the intensive care unit after execution of necrosectomy (1,4±0,4 7,2±1,3 days, respectively, p&lt;0.01). A complete return to social activity in the control group was noted only in 10 (37%) patients compared with 19 (76%) in the Step-up group (p &lt;0.01). In the Step-up group, in comparison with the control group, a tendency towards a decrease in mortality was revealed (16% and 34.5%, respectively, p&gt; 0.05).Conclusion.The step-up approach can improve the results of treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. The most important advantage of this concept is reproducibility - that is, the possibility of using it not only in the leading metropolitan clinics, but also in the regions of the Russian Federation. The step-up approach, however, has not yet acquired a complete form, and there is room for improvement.

The efficacy and efficiency of stent-assisted percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis: a pilot clinical study using historical controls.

Minimally invasive interventions have become standard treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). Despite the marginal clinical advantage of endoscopic approaches over the surgical approach shown in recent studies, percutaneous techniques still have a role when endoscopic treatment is not indicated. Stent-assisted percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (SAPEN) is an alternative option for surgical necrosectomy, but the theoretical advantages to this procedure remain unproven. This study aimed to report the efficacy and efficiency of SAPEN in patients with IPN. This is a retrospective, historically-controlled, cohort study. All IPN patients admitted to our center from January 2015 to December 2018 were screened for eligibility. Patients admitted between January 2015 and October 2017 were historical controls, and patients admitted thereafter were treated with additional self-expandable metal stent (SEMS). The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications and/or death. Other outcomes, including individual components of the primary endpoint, new-onset sepsis, length of ICU and hospital stay, and pancreatic fistula, were also compared. There were 73 historical-control patients and 37 patients who had SAPEN included for analysis. The introduction of the SAPEN procedure failed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint (35 versus 52%, P = 0.095). However, significantly shorter hospital stay (38 versus 48 days, P = 0.035) and lower incidence of new-onset sepsis were observed in the SAPEN group (35 versus 56%, P = 0.037). The application of SEMS in percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy procedures shortened hospital stay, decreased new-onset sepsis, and allowed earlier necrosectomy.

Research progress in the application of necrotic cavity lavage in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis

Lavage has been used in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis(IPN) for a long time.It can be divided into peritoneal lavage and necrotic cavity lavage according to different parts of lavage.At present,peritoneal lavage is rarely used,while necrotic cavity lavage is widely used in laparotomy,minimally invasive surgery and endoscopic debridement and drainage for IPN patients.However,there is no unified standard for the type,method,duration and indication of stopping lavage.The application of lavage is controversial: proponents think that necrotic cavity lavage can dilute and remove residual or new necrotic tissue,remove inflammatory mediators and reduce the times of debridement,etc.While opponents think that lavage can not significantly reduce the concentration of phospholipase A2 and other bioactive substances,and is easy to form abscess and peripancreatic sepsis and cause infection to spread into the abdominal cavity and form peritonitis.In conclusion,necrotic cavity lavage can benefit some patients,especially those with smaller drainage diameter who underwent endoscopic debridement and percutaneous catheter drainage.However,whether it is necessary for patients with larger drainage diameter who underwent laparotomy or video-assisted debridement still needs to be further studied by randomized controlled trials.

The step up approach in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis. A case report

Presenter: Maria Liz Sanchez MD | Hospital de Clínicas de Asunción Background: Approximately 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) develop the severe form. Treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis has changed over the past 20 years and continues to evolve with increasing experience, new techniques, and research. Treatment of Infected necrosis by laparotomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The “Step Up Approach” consists of the successive placement of drains of progressively greater caliber, it has demonstrated, since the publication of the PANTER study, its superiority over the classical surgical approach in terms of morbidity. In up to 35% of cases, the episode will be resolved only in this way, in the rest of patients, the pancreatic cell will be debrided. Methods: We present the case of a patient with a diagnosis of severe acute pancreatitis and infected pancreatic necrosis who was managed with the now popular “step up” approach Results: Clinical case: 28-year-old male with dyslipidemic origin (AP), with necrosis pancreatic, peripancreatic collections, and gas in retroperitoneum, treated with TPN, pancreatin (CREON) and antibiotic therapy (Imipenem 20 days and then according to antibiogram). He developed infected necrosis that required drainage with two 12 Fr and 14 Fr pigtails (25th day-hospitalization), with ultrasound-guided access in the right flank and left flank. Catheter replacement and progressive increase in diameter were performed, followed by RPVA necrosectomy following the path of the left pigtail (th day-hospitalization). The evolution was favorable, with progressive withdrawal of drains, and discharge without drains on day 65 of hospitalization. Conclusion: The “Step Up Approach” is the current standard in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis, it is effective and safe, avoiding the serious complications of open necrosectomy, with a good recovery of the patient.

Novel techniques for management of portal system hemorrhage in acute pancreatitis

Current management of infected pancreatic necrosis is focused on a minimally invasive step-up approach. The step-up approach consists of initial percutaneous or endoscopic drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic debridement. While there is reduced morbidity and mortality, vascular complications can be life-threatening. Reported vascular complications have been limited to arterial bleeding. Venous bleeding has not been previously reported. We present two cases of portal venous bleeding in patients who underwent treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis with a step-up approach. We discuss the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and initial management. Moreover, we present two different techniques that can be used to successfully manage venous bleeding in patients who have percutaneous drains in place as part of a step-up approach. These techniques involve tamponading the cavity or drain tract with topical hemostatics and direct embolization of the bleeding vein. These experiences can serve as a guide for managing portal venous bleeding in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Comparison between video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement and small incision pancreatic necrosectomy in infected pancreatic necrosis.

Debridement and drainage have always been mainstream treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), and the application of minimally invasive necrosectomy is becoming increasingly widespread. However, few studies have compared video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) and small incision pancreatic necrosectomy (SIPN) individually. Our aim was to compare VARD and SIPN by evaluating outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed patients with IPN who underwent either VARD or SIPN between 2010 and 2019 in China. Data relative to patient demographics, major complications, health care resource utilization and mortality were collected. Statistical analyses used were the two-tailed Student's t-test and the chi-squared test. Of 59 patients, 31 patients underwent SIPN and 28 patients were treated with VARD. SIPN and VARD had similar treatment success and mortality rates. The rate of reintervention due to lack of clinical improvement was significantly lower in the SIPN group (32% versus 61%; P = 0.028). In addition, the length of total hospital stay was 60 days in the SIPN group and 72 days in the VARD group (P < 0.0001) and mean total costs was significantly less in the SIPN group than in the VARD group (P = 0.008). Given the shorter hospitalization period, lower total cost and lower rate of reinterventions, SIPN may be superior to the step-up approach for patients with IPN than for those with VARD.