4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Surgical Management of Failed Endoscopic Treatment of Pancreatic Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 1924-1929

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-008-0644-2

关键词

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); Endoscopic therapy; Acute and chronic pancreatitis; Salvage surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Endoscopic therapy of acute and chronic pancreatitis has decreased the need for operative intervention. However, a significant proportion of patients treated endoscopically require definitive surgical management for persistent symptoms. Objective Our aim was to determine which patients are likely to fail with endoscopic therapy, and to assess the clinical outcome of surgical management. Patients were identified using ICD-9 codes for pancreatic disease as well as CPT codes for endoscopic therapy followed by surgery. Material and Methods Patients with documented acute or chronic pancreatitis treated endoscopically prior to surgical therapy were included (N = 88). The majority of patients (65%) exhibited chronic pancreatitis due to alcohol abuse. Common indicators for surgery were: persistent symptoms, anatomy not amenable to endoscopic treatment and unresolved common bile duct or pancreatic duct strictures. Surgical salvage procedures included internal drainage of a pseudocyst or an obstructed pancreatic duct (46%), debridement of peripancreatic fluid collections (25%), and pancreatic resection (31%). Results Death occurred in 3% of patients. The most common complications were hemorrhage (16%), wound infection (13%), and pulmonary complications (11%). Chronic pancreatitis with persistent symptoms is the most common reason for pancreatic surgery following endoscopic therapy. Surgical salvage therapy can largely be accomplished by drainage procedures, but pancreatic resection is common. Conclusion These complex procedures can be performed with acceptable mortality but also with significant risk for morbidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据