ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Laparotomy versus retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fever on hospital admission is associated with increased disease severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Outcomes of Endoscopic, Minimally Invasive Surgical, and Open Necrosectomy in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: Evidence From a Network Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Open necrosectomy is feasible as a last resort in selected cases with infected pancreatic necrosis: a case series and systematic literature review.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2020Pooled it
- Combined totally mini-invasive approach in necrotizing pancreatitis: a case report and systematic literature review.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2017Pooled it
- Minimally invasive approach versus open approach in the management of necrotizing acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- One-step laparoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy verse surgical step-up approach for infected pancreatic necrosis: a case-control study.World journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Small Incision Combined with Nephroscope Operation in the Treatment of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis: A Single-Center Experience of 37 Patients.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Surgical and interventional management of complications caused by acute pancreatitis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare laparotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and to evaluate the curative efficacy and the timing of retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement drainage (RLDD) for SAP patients.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 50 SAP cases, including 18 patients in the RLDD group and 32 patients in the laparotomy group. Observed indices included gender, age, CT severity index, Ranson score, APACHE II score, preoperative course, length of stay, operation time, mortality, postoperative complications, drainage tube indwelling time, and change of body temperature and peripheral white blood cell (PWBC) count between the time before the operation and at 48 h after surgery.
resultsBetween the RLDD group and the laparotomy group, there was a significant difference in operation time (130 ± 15 vs. 148 ± 25 h; P = 0.007), length of stay [40.8 (6-121) vs. 55.9 (28-133) days; P = 0.053], and preoperative course [14.7 (5-31) vs. 18.3 (6-31) days; P = 0.05], but no significant difference in average drainage tube indwelling time [44.4 (2-182) vs. 49.8 (2-175) days; P = 0.663]. More improvement in body temperature and PWBC count was observed in the patients of the RLDD group. There was one death (1/18) in the RLDD group and four (4/32) in the laparotomy group. Fourteen cases (14/32) in the laparotomy group had postoperative complications, including pancreatic fistula (n = 11), intestinal fistula (n = 2), retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 2), infection of incision (n = 9), and 5 cases (5/18) in the RLDD group, including pancreatic fistula (n = 4) and retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 1).
conclusionsRLDD, as minimally invasive surgery, is technically feasible, safe, and effective in the treatment of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in SAP patients, in contrast to the laparotomy technique, and can be performed in the early phase of SAP to prevent the deterioration of the disease.
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.