OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to assess the outcome of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis with additional focus on indication, disease severity, and methodological quality of studies. DESIGN: We searched the literature published between January 2005 and June 2013. Cohorts, including patients with (infected) necrotising pancreatitis, undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy were included. Indication, disease severity, and methodological quality were described. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, number of endoscopic sessions, and definitive successful treatment with endoscopic necrosectomy alone. RESULTS: After screening 581 papers, 14 studies, including 455 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. All included studies were retrospective analyses except for one randomized, controlled trial. Overall methodological quality was moderate to low (mean 5, range 2-9). Less than 50 % of studies reported on pre-procedural severity of disease: mean APACHE-II score before intervention was 8; organ failure was present in 23 % of patients; and infected necrosis in 57 % of patients. On average, four (range 1-23) endoscopic interventions were performed per patient. With endoscopic necrosectomy alone, definitive successful treatment was achieved in 81 % of patients. Mortality was 6 % (28/460 patients) and complications occurred in 36 % of patients. Bleeding was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy is an effective treatment for the majority of patients with necrotising pancreatitis with acceptable mortality and complication rates. It should be noted that methodological quality of the available studies is limited and that the combined patient population of endoscopically treated patients is only moderately ill.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to assess the outcome of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis with additional focus on indication, disease severity, and methodological quality of studies. DESIGN: We searched the literature published between January 2005 and June 2013. Cohorts, including patients with (infected) necrotising pancreatitis, undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy were included. Indication, disease severity, and methodological quality were described. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, number of endoscopic sessions, and definitive successful treatment with endoscopic necrosectomy alone. RESULTS: After screening 581 papers, 14 studies, including 455 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. All included studies were retrospective analyses except for one randomized, controlled trial. Overall methodological quality was moderate to low (mean 5, range 2-9). Less than 50 % of studies reported on pre-procedural severity of disease: mean APACHE-II score before intervention was 8; organ failure was present in 23 % of patients; and infected necrosis in 57 % of patients. On average, four (range 1-23) endoscopic interventions were performed per patient. With endoscopic necrosectomy alone, definitive successful treatment was achieved in 81 % of patients. Mortality was 6 % (28/460 patients) and complications occurred in 36 % of patients. Bleeding was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy is an effective treatment for the majority of patients with necrotising pancreatitis with acceptable mortality and complication rates. It should be noted that methodological quality of the available studies is limited and that the combined patient population of endoscopically treated patients is only moderately ill.
Authors: Dirk Bausch; Ulrich Wellner; Sebastian Kahl; Simon Kuesters; Hans-Jürgen Richter-Schrag; Stefan Utzolino; Ulrich T Hopt; Tobias Keck; Andreas Fischer Journal: Surgery Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Eric M Walser; William H Nealon; Santiago Marroquin; Syed Raza; J Alberto Hernandez; James Vasek Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Marc Gh Besselink; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Erik Buskens; Marja A Boermeester; Harry van Goor; Harro M Timmerman; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Thomas L Bollen; Bert van Ramshorst; Ben Jm Witteman; Camiel Rosman; Rutger J Ploeg; Menno A Brink; Alexander Fm Schaapherder; Cornelis Hc Dejong; Peter J Wahab; Cees Jhm van Laarhoven; Erwin van der Harst; Casper Hj van Eijck; Miguel A Cuesta; Louis Ma Akkermans; Hein G Gooszen Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Ruben Rodriguez; A Oswaldo Razo; Javier Targarona; Sarah P Thayer; David W Rattner; Andrew L Warshaw; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rogier P Voermans; Mariëlle C Veldkamp; Erik A Rauws; Marco J Bruno; Paul Fockens Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Timothy B Gardner; Prabhleen Chahal; Georgios I Papachristou; Santhi Swaroop Vege; Bret T Petersen; Christopher J Gostout; Mark D Topazian; Naoki Takahashi; Michael G Sarr; Todd H Baron Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christopher C Stahl; Jonathan Moulton; Doan Vu; Ross Ristagno; Kyuran Choe; Jeffrey J Sussman; Shimul A Shah; Syed A Ahmad; Daniel E Abbott Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Lu Ke; Wenjian Mao; Jing Zhou; Bo Ye; Gang Li; Jingzhu Zhang; Peng Wang; Zhihui Tong; John Windsor; Weiqin Li Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.352
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