21 21 González‐López J, Macías‐García F, Lariño‐Noia J, Domínguez‐Muñoz JE. Theoretical approach to local infusion of antibiotics for infected pancreatic necrosis. Pancreatology 2016; 16(5):719–725.
22 22 McClave SA, Heyland DK. The physiologic response and associated clinical benefits from provision of early enteral nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract 2009; 24(3):305–315.
23 23 Marik PE. What is the best way to feed patients with pancreatitis? Curr Opin Crit Care 2009; 15(2):131–138.
24 24 Li W, Liu J, Zhao S, Li J. Safety and efficacy of total parenteral nutrition versus total enteral nutrition for patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta‐analysis. J Int Med Res 2018; 46(9):3948–3958.
25 25 Petrov MS, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MGH, et al. Enteral nutrition and the risk of mortality and infectious complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Arch Surg 2008; 143(11):1111–1117.
26 26 Eatock FC, Chong P, Menezes N, et al. A randomized study of early nasogastric versus nasojejunal feeding in severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100(2):432–439.
27 27 Chang Y, Fu H, Xiao Y, Liu J. Nasogastric or nasojejunal feeding in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a meta‐analysis. Crit Care 2013; 17(3):R118.
28 28 Bakker OJ, van Brunschot S, van Santvoort HC, et al. Early versus on‐demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2014; 371(21):1983–1993.
29 29 Stimac D, Poropat G, Hauser G, et al. Early nasojejunal tube feeding versus nil‐by‐mouth in acute pancreatitis: a randomized clinical trial. Pancreatology 2016; 16(4):523–528.
30 30 van Baal MC, Bollen TL, Bakker OJ, et al. The role of routine fine‐needle aspiration in the diagnosis of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Surgery 2014; 155(3):442–448.
31 31 Chen H‐Z, Ji L, Li L, et al. Early prediction of infected pancreatic necrosis secondary to necrotizing pancreatitis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96(30):e7487.
32 32 Rau B, Steinbach G, Baumgart K, et al. The clinical value of procalcitonin in the prediction of infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Intensive Care Med 2000; 26(Suppl 2):S159–S164.
33 33 Jain S, Padhan R, Bopanna S, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic step‐up therapy is an effective minimally invasive approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 2020; 65(2):615–622.
34 34 Al‐Sarireh B, Mowbray NG, Al‐Sarira A, et al. Can infected pancreatic necrosis really be managed conservatively? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 30(11):1327–1331.
35 35 Mohan BP, Jayaraj M, Asokkumar R, et al. Lumen apposing metal stents in drainage of pancreatic walled‐off necrosis, are they any better than plastic stents? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies published since the revised Atlanta classification of pancreatic fluid collections. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8(2):82–90.
36 36 Baron TH, DiMaio CJ, Wang AY, Morgan KA. American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update: management of pancreatic necrosis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158(1):67–75.e1.
37 37 DeSimone ML, Asombang AW, Berzin TM. Lumen apposing metal stents for pancreatic fluid collections: recognition and management of complications. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 9(9):456–463.
15 Minimally Invasive Surgical Necrosectomy in Clinical Practice : Indications, Technical Issues, and Optimal Timing
Patricia Sánchez‐Velázquez, Fernando Burdío, and Ignasi Poves †
Department of Surgery, Hospital del Mar and Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Introduction
Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) is still a life‐threatening disease associated with high morbidity and up to 60% mortality [1]. It was classically accepted that infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), confirmed by a positive culture of the necrosis after fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) [2], was an absolute indication for emergent surgical debridement [3], especially in the presence of multiorgan failure [4]. However, it seems that the diagnosis of IPN alone is no longer an absolute indication for direct surgical intervention, or at least that it is extremely challenging to determine the best timing for intervention, or even to decide whether surgery is the best option. In this regard, in a few years we have moved from highly proactive management [5] to a conservative approach. The first randomized controlled trial on this topic in the late 1990s showed that postponing surgery by at least 12 days from onset of symptoms significantly reduced complications [6]. Indeed, it seems that delaying the intervention to the third or fourth week of symptoms tends to reduce mortality compared with the first 14 days after onset of symptoms [7]. The rationale for this delay is based on the fact that a new “hit” in these already critical patients would have a negative impact on outcomes. The international guidelines now advise this cutoff and do not recommend operations on ANP in the first two weeks from onset, as long as the patient responds favorably to medical management [8,9].
The surgical treatment of IPN has evolved rapidly in recent years. When open necrosectomy and debridement were traditionally considered the gold standard [10,11], most patients were subjected to surgical explorations, removal of necrotic debris through the gastrocolic route, and multiple drain placements. This hazardous approach was classically associated with a high rate of postoperative complications, reoperations and mortality, as well as being frequently associated with postoperative diabetes and exocrine pancreas insufficiency [1,12]. However, the new alternative minimally invasive techniques have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality [13]. In a landmark study published in 2010, van Santvoort et al. [14] established the so‐called “step‐up” approach as the new ANP gold‐standard surgical procedure. This consists of a stepwise rise in the use of invasive techniques, since the success of surgery in this setting depends on controlling the source of infection rather than completely removing the infected necrosis [15]. In fact, severe pancreatitis is more likely to be related to extrapancreatic organ failure than to local complications [16].
The goal of this chapter is thus to describe the different minimally invasive approaches, which can be classified into four broad groups: percutaneous, retroperitoneal, laparoscopic (transperitoneal), and endoscopic (endoluminal).
Percutaneous Drainage
The aim of the percutaneous approach is to improve the patient’s condition and to delay surgery until IPN is well defined (walled‐off necrosis, or WON). Necrosis demarcation facilitates necrosectomy and reduces complications related to drainage and debridement. Although there is some evidence of the safety of drainage placement in the absence of WON, instauration of the necrosis is normally preferred before performing any interventionism, so that it has become the standard practice for some years.
In 1998, Freeny et al. [17] first reported positive results using percutaneous drains inserted under radiological control for initial IPN management. They found that subsequent surgery was avoided in 47% of the cases and sepsis controlled in 74%. Successive studies describe a similar technique, namely inserting computed tomography (CT)‐ or ultrasound‐guided percutaneous drains of 8–28 Fr to evacuate infected peripancreatic collections, combined with antibiotics. Neither the size nor the number of drains seems to affect patient outcomes [18]. Multiple drains may be needed to replace previous ones in order to increase the inserted catheter diameters and saline flushes are often applied at 8‐hour intervals. A recent systematic review of 286 patients found that percutaneous drainage was successful in 44% of the patients without requiring necrosectomy [18], while only 35% of the patients in the PANTER trial had no need for further interventions after this procedure