Mark C van Baal1, Thomas L Bollen2, Olaf J Bakker3, Harry van Goor4, Marja A Boermeester5, Cees H Dejong6, Hein G Gooszen1, Erwin van der Harst7, Casper H van Eijck8, Hjalmar C van Santvoort3, Marc G Besselink9. 1. Department of Operating Room/Evidence Based Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.g.besselink@amc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosing infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) may be challenging. The aim of this study was to determine the added value of routine fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in addition to clinical and imaging signs of infection in patients who underwent intervention for suspected INP. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of 208 consecutive patients from a prospective, multicenter database who underwent intervention because of suspected INP. In retrospect, 3 groups were constructed based on the patients preoperative characteristics: Clinical, imaging, and FNA. Patients in the clinical group had clinical signs of infection but no gas on preoperative computed tomography (CT) and no FNA performed before intervention. Patients in the imaging group had gas bubbles on the preoperative CT but no was FNA performed, whereas patients in the FNA group had a positive FNA before intervention. The reference standard for infection was the culture taken during the first intervention (either catheter drainage or necrosectomy). RESULTS: The initial intervention for INP was performed a median of 27 days (interquartile range, 20-39) after admission without difference between the 3 groups (P = .15). Infection was confirmed in 80% of 92 patients of the clinical group, in 94% of 88 patients of the imaging group, and in 86% of 28 patients of the FNA group (P = .07). Mortality was 19% and was not different between groups (P = .39). CONCLUSION: INP can generally be diagnosed based on clinical or imaging signs of infection. FNA may be useful in patients with unclear clinical signs and no imaging signs of INP.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosing infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) may be challenging. The aim of this study was to determine the added value of routine fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in addition to clinical and imaging signs of infection in patients who underwent intervention for suspected INP. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of 208 consecutive patients from a prospective, multicenter database who underwent intervention because of suspected INP. In retrospect, 3 groups were constructed based on the patients preoperative characteristics: Clinical, imaging, and FNA. Patients in the clinical group had clinical signs of infection but no gas on preoperative computed tomography (CT) and no FNA performed before intervention. Patients in the imaging group had gas bubbles on the preoperative CT but no was FNA performed, whereas patients in the FNA group had a positive FNA before intervention. The reference standard for infection was the culture taken during the first intervention (either catheter drainage or necrosectomy). RESULTS: The initial intervention for INP was performed a median of 27 days (interquartile range, 20-39) after admission without difference between the 3 groups (P = .15). Infection was confirmed in 80% of 92 patients of the clinical group, in 94% of 88 patients of the imaging group, and in 86% of 28 patients of the FNA group (P = .07). Mortality was 19% and was not different between groups (P = .39). CONCLUSION: INP can generally be diagnosed based on clinical or imaging signs of infection. FNA may be useful in patients with unclear clinical signs and no imaging signs of INP.
Authors: Elham Afghani; Stephen J Pandol; Tooru Shimosegawa; Robert Sutton; Bechien U Wu; Santhi Swaroop Vege; Fred Gorelick; Morihisa Hirota; John Windsor; Simon K Lo; Martin L Freeman; Markus M Lerch; Yoshihisa Tsuji; Gil Y Melmed; Wahid Wassef; Julia Mayerle Journal: Pancreas Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Janneke van Grinsven; Sandra van Brunschot; Mark C van Baal; Marc G Besselink; Paul Fockens; Harry van Goor; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Thomas L Bollen Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Janneke van Grinsven; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marja A Boermeester; Cornelis H Dejong; Casper H van Eijck; Paul Fockens; Marc G Besselink Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Janneke van Grinsven; Sandra van Brunschot; Olaf J Bakker; Thomas L Bollen; Marja A Boermeester; Marco J Bruno; Cornelis H Dejong; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Casper H van Eijck; Paul Fockens; Harry van Goor; Hein G Gooszen; Karen D Horvath; Krijn P van Lienden; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-20 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Xiaowu Dong; Wenjian Mao; Lu Ke; Lin Gao; Jing Zhou; Bo Ye; Gang Li; Anthony Phillips; Zhihui Tong; John Windsor; Weiqin Li Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 2.260