AGA Institute Technical Review on Acute Pancreatitis

https://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/gastro/ge-2007/ge073l.pdf

Revisión técnica sobre pancreatitis aguda del Instituto de la AGA

Purpose To determine the national incidence and risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Background Most series reporting the rates at which laparoscopic cholecystectomies are performed, relative to the open procedure, have come from centers specializing in laparoscopic surgery. The rates at which conversions occur from these centers may not reflect those in community practice. We sought to determine the actual, and therefore acceptable, conversion rate by examining nationally representative discharge data. Methods The National Hospital Discharge database for 1998 to 2001 was acquired from the Centers for Disease Control. All gallbladder disease related admissions were extracted, and the cholecystectomies (ICD-9-CM codes 51.2X) were analyzed using the SAS package. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine what factors were associated with the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Results Approximately 25% of all cholecystectomies are performed by the open technique. Of the remaining 75%, there is an approximately 5% to 10% conversion rate. The major risk factors for conversion included male sex, obesity, and cholecystitis. Concurrent choledocholithiasis, cholelithiasis, and cholecystitis were associated with a conversion rate of 25%. Length of stay (LOS) was reduced for laparoscopic operations and although conversion added 2 to 3 days to the LOS, for most cases the LOS was still less than for primary open operations. Conclusions Three quarters of all cholecystectomies are performed laparoscopically, and the national conversion rate is 5% to 10%. Cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, male sex, and obesity are major predictors for conversion. The data presented in terms of conversion rates and LOS were derived from population-adjusted hospital discharge data and represent the current U.S. experience for cholecystectomy. From these data the community experience for conversion rates, risk factors, and LOS can be derived.

A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy.

Pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis may result in significant morbidity and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis. Many recommendations have been made for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, but no published guidelines have incorporated the many recent developments in minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy. Hence, a multidisciplinary conference was convened to develop a consensus on interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. Participants included most international experts from multiple disciplines. The evidence for efficacy of interventions was reviewed, presentations were given by experts, and a consensus was reached on each topic. In summary, intervention is primarily indicated for infected necrosis, less often for symptomatic sterile necrosis, and should ideally be delayed as long as possible, preferably 4 weeks or longer after the onset of disease, for better demarcation and liquefaction of the necrosis. Both the step-up approach using percutaneous drainage followed by minimally invasive video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement and per-oral endoscopic necrosectomy have been shown to have superior outcomes to traditional open necrosectomy with respect to short-term and long-term morbidity and are emerging as treatments of choice. Applicability of these techniques depends on the availability of specialized expertise and a multidisciplinary team dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications.

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: summary of a multidisciplinary consensus conference.

1 ESGE suggests using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the first-line imaging modality on admission when indicated and up to the 4th week from onset in the absence of contraindications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used instead of CT in patients with contraindications to contrast-enhanced CT, and after the 4th week from onset when invasive intervention is considered because the contents (liquid vs. solid) of pancreatic collections are better characterized by MRI and evaluation of pancreatic duct integrity is possible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends against routine percutaneous fine needle aspiration (FNA) of (peri)pancreatic collections. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. FNA should be performed only if there is suspicion of infection and clinical/imaging signs are unclear. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends initial goal-directed intravenous fluid therapy with Ringer’s lactate (e. g. 5 – 10 mL/kg/h) at onset. Fluid requirements should be patient-tailored and reassessed at frequent intervals. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against antibiotic or probiotic prophylaxis of infectious complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends invasive intervention for patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and clinically suspected or proven infected necrosis. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests that the first intervention for infected necrosis should be delayed for 4 weeks if tolerated by the patient. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends performing endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of (suspected) infected walled-off necrosis as the first interventional method, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that, in the absence of improvement following endoscopic transmural drainage of walled-off necrosis, endoscopic necrosectomy or minimally invasive surgery (if percutaneous drainage has already been performed) is to be preferred over open surgery as the next therapeutic step, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends long-term indwelling of transluminal plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Lumen-apposing metal stents should be retrieved within 4 weeks to avoid stent-related adverse effects. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

/pdf/endoscopic-management-of-acute-necrotizing-pancreatitis-44siiy5zm8.pdf

Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines

Background: Infected pancreatic necrosis is considered an absolute indication for interventional management such as percutaneous drainage or surgery. The presence of retroperitoneal

Are some cases of infected pancreatic necrosis treatable without intervention

Background: In the light of laparoscopic cholecystectomy increasingly applied to all forms of cholecystitis, this study aimed at evaluating the safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy applied to all cases of acute cholecystitis, and at determining factors associated with the risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy. Methods: The clinical, biochemical, radiologic, and operative data from 124 consecutive cases of acute cholecystitis were analyzed retrospectively to determine the complications and morbidity after operation. The data were analyzed further by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with conversion. Results: No major bile duct injury or mortality occurred. Bile leak from the stump of the cystic duct developed in four patients. These were managed successfully by endoscopic biliary stent placement. The mean duration of hospital stay was 3.8 days in the laparoscopic group and 8.2 days in the open group. Of the 124 patients (18.5%), 23 underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy. Univariate analysis identified the following factors as associated with conversion: common duct dilation greater than 7 mm observed on ultrasound, (p < 0.05), pericholecystic collection seen on ultrasound (p < 0.0001), emphysematous cholecystitis (p < 0.01), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographic evidence of Mirizzi syndrome (p < 0.05), and pericholecystic collection at operation (p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, only pericholecystic collection (p < 0.015) and gallbladder wall thickness greater than 5 mm (p < 0.013) were statistically significant. Conclusions: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis can be applied safely to all comers, offering the advantage of a shortened hospital stay. Pericholecystic collection, as observed on ultrasound, is associated with a high risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis.

In light of the explosive increase in laparoscopic surgery, there is concern about the effectiveness of sterilizing reusable laparoscopic instruments by immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde. This article describes the clinical features of eight patients who presented with biopsy-proven tuberculosis at the port-site unassociated with other clinical features of tuberculosis. Three of the eight patients had positive cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The port-site sinuses healed with antituberculous chemotherapy. There is conflicting information in the literature regarding the effectiveness of a 20-min instrument soak in 2% glutaraldehyde to clear M. tuberculosis. In light of the preceding information, the current practice of glutaraldehyde disinfection for reusable laparoscopes needs to be reexamined.

Port-site tuberculosis after laparoscopy: Report of eight cases

Purpose. To assess prospectively the feasibility of drainage procedures in patients with chronic pancreatitis and small ducts.

Ductal drainage with head coring in chronic pancreatitis with small-duct disease.

Background:  Patients with intrahepatic calculi require multiple interventions following successful surgical stone clearance for recurrent stones and cholangitis. The present paper describes the results of a technique of in-continuity side-to-side jejunoduodenal anastomosis (JDA) that provides endoscopic access to the hepaticojejunostomy and intrahepatic ducts. This operation is compared to other techniques in a critical appraisal of various biliary access procedures described for long-term management of intrahepatic ­calculi.



Methods:  A retrospective analysis of clinical data of 13 patients who underwent biliary drainage procedures with access loops for intrahepatic calculi during the period March 1990 to December 2000 was performed. The postoperative course of patients and the feasibility of postoperative endoscopic access to the hepaticojejunostomy and intrahepatic ductal system in treatment of recurrent cholangitis were assessed. Nine patients underwent JDA, two underwent permanent-access hepaticojejunostomy (PAH) and two others underwent an interposition hepaticojejunoduodenostomy (IHJ).



Results:  The analysis revealed no major procedure-related complications or mortality. Endoscopic access (using forward-viewing gastroscope) was possible in 100% of cases following JDA, and with difficulty in both cases after PAH. Endoscopic access in the two patients with IHJ failed because of technical reasons. Recurrent cholangitis was seen in seven patients (54%) − two out of two patients in the PAH group, one out of two in the IHJ group and four out of nine in the JDA group. This required 12 endotherapy sessions (mean: 1.5 procedures per patient).



Conclusion:  In-continuity side-to-side JDA allows easy access of conventional gastroduodenoscopes to the biliary tree for removal of recurrent/residual intrahepatic stones. The technique has advantages over other access loop procedures in the long term management of recurrent intrahepatic stones.

Biliary access loops for intrahepatic stones: results of jejunoduodenal anastomosis.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

H Ramesh

Author Tools

Chat about Author