November 12, 2014
Notes: Tse, F
Leontiadis, G I
Endoscopy. 2013 Aug;45(8):605-18. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326640. Epub 2013 Jun 27.
Author Address: Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. email@example.com
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 5145Author: Tu, Y., Jiao, H., Tan, X., Sun, L. and Zhang, W.
Title: Laparotomy versus retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis
Journal: Surg Endosc
Short Title: Laparotomy versus retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis
Alternate Journal: Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218 (Electronic)
Accession Number: 23793802
Length of Stay
Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing/*therapy
Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare laparotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and to evaluate the curative efficacy and the timing of retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement drainage (RLDD) for SAP patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 50 SAP cases, including 18 patients in the RLDD group and 32 patients in the laparotomy group. Observed indices included gender, age, CT severity index, Ranson score, APACHE II score, preoperative course, length of stay, operation time, mortality, postoperative complications, drainage tube indwelling time, and change of body temperature and peripheral white blood cell (PWBC) count between the time before the operation and at 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: Between the RLDD group and the laparotomy group, there was a significant difference in operation time (130 +/- 15 vs. 148 +/- 25 h; P = 0.007), length of stay [40.8 (6-121) vs. 55.9 (28-133) days; P = 0.053], and preoperative course [14.7 (5-31) vs. 18.3 (6-31) days; P = 0.05], but no significant difference in average drainage tube indwelling time [44.4 (2-182) vs. 49.8 (2-175) days; P = 0.663]. More improvement in body temperature and PWBC count was observed in the patients of the RLDD group. There was one death (1/18) in the RLDD group and four (4/32) in the laparotomy group. Fourteen cases (14/32) in the laparotomy group had postoperative complications, including pancreatic fistula (n = 11), intestinal fistula (n = 2), retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 2), infection of incision (n = 9), and 5 cases (5/18) in the RLDD group, including pancreatic fistula (n = 4) and retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: RLDD, as minimally invasive surgery, is technically feasible, safe, and effective in the treatment of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in SAP patients, in contrast to the laparotomy technique, and can be performed in the early phase of SAP to prevent the deterioration of the disease.