ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2013
Focused open necrosectomy in necrotizing pancreatitis.
Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Combined totally mini-invasive approach in necrotizing pancreatitis: a case report and systematic literature review.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2017Pooled it
- Early Spontaneous Abdominal Bleeding is associated with Poor Outcome in Moderate to Severe Acute Pancreatitis Patients: A Propensity Matched Study.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Safety of direct endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with gastric varices.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Article
- Routine use of U-tube drainage for necrotizing pancreatitis: a step toward less morbidity and resource utilization.Surgery · 2015Article
- Spontaneous bleeding in pancreatitis treated by transcatheter arterial coil embolization: a retrospective study.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe control of sepsis is the primary goal of surgical intervention in patients with infected necrosis. Simple surgical approaches that are easy to reproduce may improve outcomes when specialists in endoscopy are not available. The aim of the present study was to describe the experience with a focused open necrosectomy (FON) in patients with infected necrosis.
methodA prospective pilot study conducted to compare a semi-open/closed drainage laparotomy and FON with the assistance of peri-operative ultrasound. The incidence of sepsis, dynamics of C-reactive protein (CRP), intensive care unit (ICU)/hospital stay, complication rate and mortality were compared and analysed.
resultsFrom a total of 58 patients, 36 patients underwent a conventional open necrosectomy and 22 patients underwent FON. The latter method resulted in a faster resolution of sepsis and a significant decrease in mean CRP on Day 3 after FON, P = 0.001. Post-operative bleeding was in 1 versus 7 patients and the incidence of intestinal and pancreatic fistula was 2 versus 8 patients when comparing FON to the conventional approach. The median ICU stay was 11.6 versus 23 days and the hospital stay was significantly shorter, 57 versus 72 days, P = 0.024 when comparing FON versus the conventional group. One patient died in the FON group and seven patients died in the laparotomy group, P = 0.139. DISCUSSION: FON can be an alternative method to conventional open necrosectomy in patients with infected necrosis and unresolved sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.