Keywords

Drainage; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive; Surgical Procedures, Operative

Abbreviations

NOTES: natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery

Over the last years many international surveys have witnessed a substantial reduction of the mortality rate in severe acute pancreatitis [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Several factors, such as a better identification and characterization of patients having the poorest prognosis, improvement of intensive care measures, and a clearer definition of the indication/timing of surgery play a significant role in this positive scenario. In this regard the avoidance of early intervention to allow resuscitation, stabilization, and demarcation of the necrotic areas and innovations in drainage and evacuation of fluid and devitalized tissues represent important steps in the evolution of therapeutic strategies in acute pancreatitis [7, 8]. In the recent past, the most important controversies in the field of the surgical treatment of necrotizing acute pancreatitis are mainly related to the approach to be used in patients with sterile necrosis and to the choice between the different techniques of necrosectomy/drainage. The first topic still remains uncertain and, independently from what has been suggested by international guidelines/recommendations, the clinician’s expertise or the attitude of the individual working-care group guides the definitive management in daily clinical practice [9]. As regards the surgical procedure of necrosectomy/drainage, the choice is mainly between the open necrosectomy with open packing and planned re-laparotomy/lavage [10, 11] and with open necrosectomy followed by continuous closed lavage of the lesser sac and retroperitoneum [12, 13, 14, 15]. Percutaneous catheter drainage through an anterior or retroperitoneal approach (guided by CT scan or ultrasound) was mainly considered over the last years to be complementary to an intensive care support in unstable patients, often as a bridging procedure able to delay surgery [16, 17, 18]. The best results with this procedure were achieved in draining pus or fluid collections whereas debridement of thick necrotic pancreatic tissue was incomplete even though large catheters with multiple side holes were utilized [19]. The actual position of endoscopic drainage seems to differ only slightly from that of the percutaneous techniques. Based upon the success of endoscopic intervention in the management of uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts, endoscopic (trans-gastric or trans-jejunal) catheter-drainage of pancreatic necrosis has been proposed [2, 5], mainly as second-line treatment in patients unfit for surgery. The experience with this method is poor and almost confined to sterile necrosis [20, 21]. Repeated procedures are generally required to perform complete necrosectomy with possible serious complications and a high frequency of fluid collections relapses [22]. The results in infected necrosis are limited to small, selected series [23].

The surgical scenario is currently widened by the socalled “minimally invasive approaches”. Basically, recent advances in laparoscopic technology with relative instrumentation have permitted the use of minimally invasive techniques for the management of pancreatic necrosis. The aim which these techniques have in common is the attempt to minimize the surgical stress and physiological insult in patients who are already critically ill [6, 23, 24]. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal/trans-peritoneal debridement represent the mini-invasive surgical approaches most widely used. NOTES permits actively working outside the gastrointestinal tract with an endoscope (by widening transgastric access using balloon dilation); repeated sessions with forceful irrigation and suction, as well as endoscopic removal of debris using various devices, may allow complete recovery. Seifert et al. [25] recently published the result of a multicenter study (the GEPARD study) on transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy for treatment of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Ninety-three patients were enrolled; 75 had successful NOTES and underwent a mean of six interventions starting at a mean of 43 days after an attack of severe acute pancreatitis. Clinical success (symptom-free patients) and radiologic success (defined as no residual necrosis, cyst on the day of discharge) were obtained in 80% and 52% of patients, respectively. Complications related to necrosectomy (bleeding, perforations, fistula formation and air embolism) were encountered in 24 cases (26%); mortality at 30 days was 7.5% (7 patients). Long-term outcome showed that after a mean follow-up period of 43 months, 84% of the initially successfully treated patients had sustained clinical improvement, with 10% receiving further endoscopic treatment and 4% receiving surgical treatment for recurrent necrosis/ pseudocyst. The authors concluded that direct transluminal endoscopic removal of pancreatic necrosis represents a valuable option with good short- and longterm results and acceptable morbidity and mortality. Even if comparative studies between the different methods used to achieve a successful necrosectomy are not yet available, transluminal endotherapy may furnish an opportunity for a less invasive treatment alternative to the traditional primary surgical approach. Very recently, van Santvoort et al. [26] reported the results of a multicenter randomized trial comparing treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis by open laparotomy with a hybrid (“step-up”) approach in which percutaneous drainage was the first step, while necrosectomy by means of a less invasive videoassisted retroperitoneal debridement route was reserved for patients in whom drainage failed. Eighty-eight patients with necrotizing acute pancreatitis and suspected/confirmed infected necrotic tissue were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach. The primary end point chosen for the study was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple organ-failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. By using this criterion, the primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (P=0.0006). Of the patients assigned to step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. The mortality rate did not differ significantly between groups but new-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (P=0.002). The feasibility and probable greater safety of the “step-up” approach to severe necrotizing acute pancreatitis is an important synthesis and integration of evolving techniques [8]. In the presence of infection of pancreatic/peripancreatic necrosis, the possibility of evacuation of the fluid infected component may allow recovery from the infection by using concomitant antibiotic treatment; otherwise, it may play a bridging role between the critical early time after onset of acute pancreatitis and a later optimal time point for definite intervention.

The era of alternative, less invasive, procedures which allow safe necrosectomies in patients with acute pancreatitis, has arrived. Methodologies are still in progress and standardization is currently evolving; nevertheless, these alternative treatment options should notably ameliorate the management of severe acute pancreatitis in the near future.

“…The human mind is like a parachute: when open, it best works …” (Earl Derr Biggers: Charlie Chan Carries On, 1930)

Conflict of interest

The author has no potential conflict of interest

References

1. Whitcomb DC. Clinical practice. Acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:2142-50. [PMID 16707751]
2. Pandol SJ, Saluja AK, Imrie CW, Banks PA. Acute pancreatitis: bench to bedside. Gastroenterology 2007; 132:1127-51. [PMID 17383433]
3. Beger HG, Rau BM. Severe acute pancreatitis: clinical course and management. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13:5043-51. [PMID 17876868]
4. Uomo G, Pezzilli R, Gabbrielli A, Castoldi L, Zerbi A, Frulloni L, et al. Diagnostic assessment and outcome of acute pancreatitis in Italy: results of a prospective multicentre study. ProInf-AISP: Progetto informatizzato pancreatite acuta, Associazione Italiana Studio Pancreas, phase II. Dig Liv Dis 2007; 39:829-37. [PMID 17625994]
5. Frossard JL, Steer ML, Pastor CM. Acute pancreatitis. Lancet 2008; 371:143-51. [PMID 18191686]
6. Tonsi AF, Bacchion M, Crippa S, Malleo G, Bassi C. Acute pancreatitis at the beginning of the 21st century: the state of the art. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15:2945-59. [PMID 19554647]
7. Besselink MG, Verwer TJ, Schoenmaeckers EJ, Buskens E, Ridwan BU, Visser MR, et al. Timing of surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis. Arch Surg 2007; 142:1194-201. [PMID 18086987]
8. Warshaw AL. Improving the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. A step up. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1535-7. [PMID 20410519]
9. Uomo G, Miraglia S. Indications for surgery in severe acute pancreatitis. Could it also be a "manometric" question? JOP. J Pancreas (Online) 2008; 9:240-3. [PMID 18326938]
10. Bradley EL 3rd. A fifteen year experience with open drainage for infected pancreatic necrosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 177:215- 22. [PMID 8356492]
11. Nordback I, Paajanen H, Sand J. Prospective evaluation of a treatment protocol in patients with severe acute necrotising pancreatitis. Eur J Surg 1997; 163:357-64. [PMID 9195169]
12. Beger HG, Buchler M, Bittner R, Block S, Nevalainen T, Roscher R. Necrosectomy and postoperative local lavage in necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1988; 75:207-12. [PMID 3349326]
13. Larvin M, Chalmers AG, Robinson PJ, McMahon MJ. Debridement and closed cavity irrigation for the treatment of pancreatic necrosis. Br J Surg 1989; 76:465-71. [PMID 2736358]
14. Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Vesentini S, Girelli R, Cavallini G, Falconi M, et al. Retroperitoneal and peritoneal drainage and lavage in the treatment of severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990; 170:197-203. [PMID 2305344]
15. Rau B, Bothe A, Beger HG. Surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis by necrosectomy and closed lavage: changing patient characteristics and outcome in a 19-year, single-center series. Surgery 2005; 138:28-39. [PMID 16003313]
16. Freeny PC, Hauptmann E, Althaus SJ, Traverso LW, Sinanan M. Percutaneous CT-guided catheter drainage of infected acute necrotizing pancreatitis: techniques and results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170:969-75. [PMID 9530046]
17. Echenique AM, Sleeman D, Yrizarry J, Scagnelli T, Guerra JJ Jr, Casillas VJ, et al. Percutaneous catheter-directed debridement of infected pancreatic necrosis: results in 20 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1998; 9:565-71. [PMID 9684824]
18. Bruennler T, Langgartner J, Lang S, Zorger N, Herold T, Salzberger B, et al. Percutaneous necrosectomy in patients with acute, necrotizing pancreatitis. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:1604-10. [PMID 18357453]
19. Ferrucci JT 3rd, Mueller PR. Interventional approach to pancreatic fluid collections. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41:1217- 26. [PMID 14661667]
20. Baron TH, Thaggard WG, Morgan DE, Stanley RJ. Endoscopic therapy for organized pancreatic necrosis. Gastroenterology 1996; 111:755-64. [PMID 8780582]
21. Baron TH, Morgan DE. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:1412-7. [PMID 10228193]
22. Mathew A, Biswas A, Meitz KP. Endoscopic necrosectomy as primary treatment for infected peripancreatic fluid collections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68:776-82. [PMID 18926185]
23. Werner J, Feuerbach S, Uhl W, Buchler MW. Management of acute pancreatitis: from surgery to interventional intensive care. Gut 2005; 54:426-36. [PMID 15710995]
24. Babu BI, Siriwaderna AK. Current status of minimally invasive necrosectomy for post-inflammatory pancreatic necrosis. HPB (Oxford) 2009; 11:96-102. [PMID 19590631]
25. Seifert H, Biermer M, Schmitt W, Jurgensen C, Will U, Gerlach R, et al. Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy after acute pancreatitis: a multicenter study with long-term follow-up (the GEPARD study). Gut 2009; 58:1260-6. [PMID 19282306]
26. Van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, Hofker S, Boermeester MA, Dejong CH, et al. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1491-502. [PMID 20410514]