Search

ObjectiveLumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited.DesignPatients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs.ResultsA total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention—5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference −€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI −€26 386 to €10 121).ConclusionOur comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the incidence, risk factors, clinical course and treatment of perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal tract in a large unselected cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal (GI)-tract may occur in necrotizing pancreatitis. Data from large unselected patient populations on the incidence, risk factors, clinical outcomes, and treatment are lacking.METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective database of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. GI-tract perforation and fistula were defined as spontaneous or iatrogenic discontinuation of the gastrointestinal wall. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore risk factors and to adjust for confounders to explore associations of the GI-tract perforation and fistula on the clinical course.RESULTS: A perforation or fistula of the GI-tract was identified in 139 (16%) patients, located in the stomach in 23 (14%), duodenum in 56 (35%), jejunum or ileum in 18 (11%) and colon in 64 (40%). Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48-hours after admission (OR 1.19 [95%CI 1.01-1.39]) and early organ-failure (OR 2.76 [95%CI 1.78-4.29]). Prior invasive intervention was a risk factor for developing a perforation or fistula of the lower GI-tract (OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.04-6.60]). While perforation or fistula of the upper GI-tract appeared to be protective for persistent ICU-admission (OR 0.11 [95%CI 0.02-0.44]) and persistent organ failure (OR 0.15 [95%CI 0.02-0.58]), perforation or fistula of the lower GI-tract was associated with a higher rate of new onset organ failure (OR 2.47 [95%CI 1.23-4.84]). When the stomach or duodenum was affected, treatment was mostly conservative (n=54, 68%). Treatment was mostly surgical when the colon was affected (n=38, 59%).CONCLUSIONS: Perforation and fistula of the GI-tract occurred in one out of six patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48 hours and early organ-failure. Prior intervention was identified as a risk factor for perforation or fistula of the lower GI-tract. The clinical course was mostly affected by involvement of the lower GI-tract.

Background Severe pancreatitis may result in a disrupted pancreatic duct, which is associated with a complicated clinical course. Diagnosis of a disrupted pancreatic duct is not standardized in clinical practice or international guidelines. We performed a systematic review of the literature on imaging modalities for diagnosing a disrupted pancreatic duct in patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases to identify all studies evaluating diagnostic modalities for the diagnosis of a disrupted pancreatic duct in acute pancreatitis. All data regarding diagnostic accuracy were extracted. Results We included 8 studies, evaluating five different diagnostic modalities in 142 patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Study quality was assessed, with proportionally divided high and low risk of bias and low applicability concerns in 75% of the studies. A sensitivity of 100% was reported for endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with or without secretin was 83%. A sensitivity of 92% was demonstrated for a combined cohort of secretin-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. A sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 50% was found for amylase measurements in drain fluid compared with ERCP. Conclusions This review suggests that various diagnostic modalities are accurate in diagnosing a disrupted pancreatic duct in patients with acute pancreatitis. Amylase measurement in drain fluid should be standardized. Given the invasive nature of other modalities, secretin-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography would be recommended as first diagnostic modality. Further prospective studies, however, are needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10620-020-06413-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis.METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133.FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64-1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04-0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group.INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis.FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

Background Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer have a high risk of major postoperative complications and a low survival rate. Insight in the impact of pancreatoduodenectomy on quality of life (QoL) is therefore of great importance. The aim of this systematic review was to assess QoL after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of all the English literature available in PubMed and Medline was performed. All studies assessing QoL with validated questionnaires in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Results After screening a total of 788 articles, the full texts of 36 articles were assessed, and 17 articles were included. QoL of physical and social functioning domains decreased in the first 3 months after surgery. Recovery of physical and social functioning towards baseline values took place after 3–6 months. Pain, fatigue and diarrhoea scores deteriorated postoperatively, but eventually resolved after 3–6 months. Conclusion Pancreatoduodenectomy for malignant disease negatively influences QoL in the physical and social domains at short term. It will eventually recover to baseline values after 3–6 months. This information is valuable for counselling and expectation management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

Contains fulltext : 177888.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.

Background Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15–20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. Methods POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Discussion The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis. Trial registration ISRCTN, 33682933. Registered on 6 August 2015. Retrospectively registered. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3315-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis may lead to loss of integrity of the pancreatic duct, resulting in leakage of pancreatic fluid. Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is associated with a prolonged disease course and particular complications. Since a standard treatment for this condition is currently lacking, we performed a systematic review of the literature to compare outcomes of various treatment strategies. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Included were articles considering the treatment of patients with disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct resulting from acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Results: Overall, 21 observational cohort studies were included comprising a total of 583 relevant patients. The most frequently used treatment strategies included endoscopic transpapillary drainage, endoscopic transluminal drainage, surgical drainage or resection, or combined procedures. Pooled analysis showed success rates of 81% (95%-CI: 60–92%) for transpapillary and 92% (95%-CI: 77–98%) for transluminal drainage, 80% (95%-CI: 67–89%) for distal pancreatectomy and 84% (95%-CI: 73–91%) for cyst-jejunostomy. Success rates did not differ between surgical procedures (cyst-jejunostomy and distal pancreatectomy (risk ratio = 1.06, p = .26)) but distal pancreatectomy was associated with a higher incidence of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (risk ratio = 3.06, p = .01). The success rate of conservative treatment is unknown. Discussion: Different treatment strategies for pancreatic duct disruption and duct disconnection after necrotizing pancreatitis show high success rates but various sources of bias in the available studies are likely. High-quality prospective, studies, including unselected patients, are needed to establish the most effective treatment in specific subgroups of patients, including timing of treatment and long-term follow-up.

The management of infected pancreatic necrosis has historically been based on early, open necrosectomy, associated with significant mortality. In recent years, an evidence based transformation has occurred towards the step-up approach consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage, if necessary, followed by minimally invasive necrosectomy. More recently the endoscopic step-up approach has gained popularity. This review evaluates the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Key points in managing infected pancreatic necrosis: - multidisciplinary team approach in tertiary level centres; - no indication for prophylactic antibiotics or probiotics; - nasogastric, enteral nutrition indicated after 72 hours, if oral feeding is insufficient; - only intervene in infected necrosis; - delay intervention until "walled-off necrosis"; - step-up approach of percutaneous or endoscopic catheter drainage, followed by minimally invasive necrosectomy, if required; - endoscopic strategies are preferable where possible.

Background Enteral nutrition (EN) is more beneficial than parenteral nutrition (PN) in reducing organ failure, infectious complications, and mortality of acute pancreatitis (AP), but its timing is controversial. We attempted to evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes of early EN within 24 hours of admission in patients with AP, especially in predicted severe or severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE Databases, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles before June 2016 using RevMan 5.2 software. Results Eight studies containing 727 patients with AP were analyzed in the meta-analysis. Comparing early EN to late EN or total parental nutrition in AP, the odds ratios (OR) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.23 -1.34) for the risk of mortality, 0.40 (95% CI 0.20-0.79) for multiple organ failure, 0.57 (95% CI 0.23-1.42) for infectious complications, 0.45 (95% CI 0.17-1.21) for adverse events, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.59-1.18) for pancreatic-related infections. Furthermore, subgroup analysis for early EN in predicted severe or SAP showed a significant reduction in multiple organ failure (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09-0.96) and pancreatic-related infections (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.88). Early EN provided no benefits for mild to moderate AP. Conclusion Early EN within 24 hours of admission is safe and provides benefits for predicted severe or SAP, but not for mild to moderate pancreatitis.

markdownabstractWe read with interest the letter to the editor by Stephenson et al regarding our article “Abdominal rectus muscle atrophy and midline shift after colostomy creation.” Any attempt to decrease the risk of parastomal herniation should be applauded, because its incidence of greater than 50% remains unacceptably high. Transrectus vs pararectal stoma placement has been subject to discussion for quite some time, is retrospective in nature, and thus the level of evidence is low. The most recent Cochrane review concludes that the poor quality of the included evidence did not allow a robust conclusion. In addition, no difference could be discovered after we pooled all studies, which comprised a total number of 761 patients. Furthermore, the authors describe in their letter that they could not observe a midline shift in their trial; however, as we mention in our study, we could only determine the true midline by using the I-Space, a CAVE-like virtual reality system and V-scope software, so we are interested as to how the authors determined a midline without these tools. Applying new techniques to prevent this complication seems highly relevant, because the impact of parastomal hernia on the quality of life of patients should not be underestimated (unpublished results). Placement of the stoma lateral to the rectus muscles could possibly decrease the rate of parastomal hernia, as is suggested by the retrospective study of Stephenson et al. The intercostal nerves are less segmented lateral to the stoma and could be easier to detect and preserve. Randomized, controlled trials, however, are needed to evaluate the effect of this technique. A possible technique for parastomal hernia prevention is the use of primary mesh augmentation. A meta-analysis focusing on primary mesh augmentation showed a decrease in parastomal hernia with a risk ratio of 0.23. Interestingly, no mesh infections were reported in any of the randomized controlled trials, but the use of prosthetic material in potentially contaminated areas are still a subject of debate. Possibly, the long-term results of the PREVENT trial could give us more information regarding this prevention method.

Introduction Incisional hernia (IH) can be attributed to multiple factors. The presence of a parastomal hernia has shown to be a risk factor for IH after midline laparotomy. Our hypothesis is that this increased risk of IH may be caused by changes in biomechanical forces, such as midline shift to the contralateral side of the colostomy owing to decreased restraining forces at the site of the colostomy, and left abdominal rectus muscle (ARM) atrophy owing to intercostal nerve damage. Methods Patients were selected if they underwent end-colostomy via open operation between 2004 and 2011. Patients were eligible if computed tomography (CT) had been performed postoperatively. If available, preoperative CTs were collected for case-control analyses. Midline shift was measured using V-scope application in the I-space, a CAVE-like virtual reality system. For the ARM atrophy hypothesis, measurements of ARM were performed at the level of colostomy, and 3 and 8 cm cranial and caudal of the colostomy. Results Postoperative CT were available for 77 patients; of these patients, 30 also had a preoperative CT. Median follow-up was 19 months. A mean shift to the right side was identified after preoperative and postoperative comparison; from −1.3 ± 4.6 to 2.1 ± 9.3 ( P = .043). Furthermore, during rectus muscle measurements, a thinner left ARM was observed below the level of colostomy. Discussion Creation of a colostomy alters the abdominal wall. Atrophy of the left ARM was seen caudal to the level of the colostomy, and a midline shift to the right side was evident on CT. These changes may explain the increased rate of IH after colostomy creation

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) remains a very frequent postoperative complication. The 2 techniques most frequently used are the onlay repair and sublay repair. However, it remains unclear which technique is superior. DATA SOURCES: A meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The quality of the nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of 178 articles, 10 articles (2 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective study, and 7 retrospective studies) comprising a total of 1,948 patients (775 onlay operations and 1173 sublay operations) were selected. Two of the studies scored below 5 points on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and were not selected. A trend was observed for IH recurrence in favor of sublay repair (odds ratio = 2.41; 95% confidence interval, .99 to 5.88; I-2 = 70%; P = .05). Surgical site infection occurred significantly less after sublay repair (odds ratio = 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 5.74; I-2 = 16%; P = .05). No difference was observed regarding seroma and hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of the included studies were retrospective studies, sublay repair seems the preferred technique for IH repair. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.