4.7 Article

Direct endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis: results from a multicenter US series

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 73, 期 4, 页码 718-726

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.053

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) for treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) has been performed as an alternative to operative or percutaneous therapy. Objective: To report the largest combined experience of DEN performed for WOPN. Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Six U.S. tertiary medical centers. Patients: A total of 104 patients with a history of acute pancreatitis and symptomatic WOPN since 2003. Interventions: DEN for WOPN. Main Outcome Measurements: Resolution or near-resolution of WOPN without the need for surgical or percutaneous intervention and procedural complications. Results: Successful resolution was achieved in 95 of 104 patients (91%). Of the patients in whom it failed, 5 died during follow-up before resolution, 2 underwent operative drainage for persistent WOPN, 1 required surgery for massive bleeding on fistula tract dilation, and 1 died periprocedurally. The mean time to resolution from the initial DEN was 4.1 months. The first debridement was performed a mean of 63 clays after the initial onset of acute pancreatitis. In 73%, the entry was transgastric with median tract dilation diameter of 18 mm. The median number of procedures was 3 with 2 debridements. Complications occurred in approximately 14% and included 5 retrogastric perforations/pneumoperitoneum, which were managed nonoperatively. Univariate analysis identified a body mass index >32 as a risk factor for failed DEN. Limitations: Retrospective, highly specialized centers. Conclusions: This large, multicenter series demonstrates that transmural, minimally invasive endoscopic debridement of WOPN performed in the United States is an efficacious and reproducible technique with an acceptable safety profile. (Gastrointest Enclose 2011;73:718-26.)

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

4.7
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