BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) represents a relatively new solution. There are no studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with IPN. The aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic management for patients with IPN and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with IPN who underwent open surgery (Open-group) or laparoscopic surgery (Lap-group) were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, white blood cell count, and APACHE II score upon admission, operative findings, major complications, and mortality were compared between the Open-group and the Lap-group. The Lap-group was further divided into two subgroups (early and late), and the operative difficulty was compared between the two subgroups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the Open-group and the Lap-group with respect to demographic data, white blood cell count, and APACHE II score. Although the mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Open-group than in the Lap-group, the estimated blood loss was significantly greater in the Open-group than in the Lap-group, as was the rate of complications. The mean postoperative hospital stay in the Open-group was significant longer than in the Lap-group, too. In the Lap-group, the mean operating time, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate in the early subgroup were significantly lower than in the late subgroup. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic necrosectomy and the placement of an intermittent irrigation and continuous suction drainage system for IPN is feasible, effective, and of minimal invasiveness. The late laparoscopic necrosectomy is relatively difficult.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) represents a relatively new solution. There are no studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with IPN. The aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic management for patients with IPN and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with IPN who underwent open surgery (Open-group) or laparoscopic surgery (Lap-group) were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, white blood cell count, and APACHE II score upon admission, operative findings, major complications, and mortality were compared between the Open-group and the Lap-group. The Lap-group was further divided into two subgroups (early and late), and the operative difficulty was compared between the two subgroups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the Open-group and the Lap-group with respect to demographic data, white blood cell count, and APACHE II score. Although the mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Open-group than in the Lap-group, the estimated blood loss was significantly greater in the Open-group than in the Lap-group, as was the rate of complications. The mean postoperative hospital stay in the Open-group was significant longer than in the Lap-group, too. In the Lap-group, the mean operating time, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate in the early subgroup were significantly lower than in the late subgroup. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic necrosectomy and the placement of an intermittent irrigation and continuous suction drainage system for IPN is feasible, effective, and of minimal invasiveness. The late laparoscopic necrosectomy is relatively difficult.