OBJECTIVES: Select patients with anatomically favorable walled off pancreatic necrosis may be treated by endoscopic (Endo-TGD) or operative (OR-TGD) transgastric debridement (TGD). We compared our experience with these 2 approaches. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Select necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) patients are suitable for TGD which may be accomplished endoscopically or surgically. Limited experience exists contrasting these techniques exists. METHODS: Patients undergoing Endo-TGD and OR-TGD at a single, high-volume pancreatic center between 2008 and 2019 were identified from a prospective database. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of these 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Among 498 NP patients undergoing necrosis intervention, 160 (32%) had TGD: 59 Endo-TGD and 101 OR-TGD. The groups were statistically similar in age, comorbidity, pancreatitis etiology, necrosis anatomy, pancreatitis severity, and timing of TGD from pancreatitis insult. OR-TGD required 1.1 ± 0.5 and Endo-TGD 3.0 ± 2.0 debridements/patient. Fewer hospital readmissions and repeat necrosis interventions, and shorter total inpatient length of stay were observed in OR-TGD patients. New-onset organ failure [Endo-TGD (13%); OR-TGD (13%); P = 1.0] was similar between groups. Hospital length of stay after TGD was significantly longer in patients undergoing Endo-TGD (13.8 ± 20.8 days) compared to OR-TGD (9.4 ± 6.1 days; P = 0.047). Mortality was 7% in Endo-TGD and 1% in OR-TGD (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Operative and endoscopic transgastric debridement achieve necrosis resolution with different temporal and procedural profiles. Clear multidisciplinary communication is essential to determine appropriate approach to individual necrotizing pancreatitis patients.
OBJECTIVES: Select patients with anatomically favorable walled off pancreatic necrosis may be treated by endoscopic (Endo-TGD) or operative (OR-TGD) transgastric debridement (TGD). We compared our experience with these 2 approaches. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Select necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) patients are suitable for TGD which may be accomplished endoscopically or surgically. Limited experience exists contrasting these techniques exists. METHODS: Patients undergoing Endo-TGD and OR-TGD at a single, high-volume pancreatic center between 2008 and 2019 were identified from a prospective database. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of these 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Among 498 NP patients undergoing necrosis intervention, 160 (32%) had TGD: 59 Endo-TGD and 101 OR-TGD. The groups were statistically similar in age, comorbidity, pancreatitis etiology, necrosis anatomy, pancreatitis severity, and timing of TGD from pancreatitis insult. OR-TGD required 1.1 ± 0.5 and Endo-TGD 3.0 ± 2.0 debridements/patient. Fewer hospital readmissions and repeat necrosis interventions, and shorter total inpatient length of stay were observed in OR-TGD patients. New-onset organ failure [Endo-TGD (13%); OR-TGD (13%); P = 1.0] was similar between groups. Hospital length of stay after TGD was significantly longer in patients undergoing Endo-TGD (13.8 ± 20.8 days) compared to OR-TGD (9.4 ± 6.1 days; P = 0.047). Mortality was 7% in Endo-TGD and 1% in OR-TGD (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Operative and endoscopic transgastric debridement achieve necrosis resolution with different temporal and procedural profiles. Clear multidisciplinary communication is essential to determine appropriate approach to individual necrotizing pancreatitis patients.
Authors: Olaf J Bakker; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Sandra van Brunschot; Ronald B Geskus; Marc G Besselink; Thomas L Bollen; Casper H van Eijck; Paul Fockens; Eric J Hazebroek; Rian M Nijmeijer; Jan-Werner Poley; Bert van Ramshorst; Frank P Vleggaar; Marja A Boermeester; Hein G Gooszen; Bas L Weusten; Robin Timmer Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas K Maatman; Sarakshi Mahajan; Alexandra M Roch; Kyle A Lewellen; Mark A Heimberger; Cameron L Colgate; Eugene P Ceppa; Michael G House; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Nicholas J Zyromski Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ji Young Bang; Juan Pablo Arnoletti; Bronte A Holt; Bryce Sutton; Muhammad K Hasan; Udayakumar Navaneethan; Nicholas Feranec; C Mel Wilcox; Benjamin Tharian; Robert H Hawes; Shyam Varadarajulu Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: John M DeWitt; Mustafa Arain; Kenneth J Chang; Reem Sharaiha; Sri Komanduri; V Raman Muthusamy; Joo Ha Hwang Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Peter A Banks; Thomas L Bollen; Christos Dervenis; Hein G Gooszen; Colin D Johnson; Michael G Sarr; Gregory G Tsiotos; Santhi Swaroop Vege Journal: Gut Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Kumaresan Sandrasegaran; Mark Tann; S Gregory Jennings; Dean D Maglinte; Sanjit D Peter; Stuart Sherman; Thomas J Howard Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333