ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
The effect of a novel minimally invasive strategy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Effect of Electroacupuncture on Acute Pancreatitis: Efficacies and Mechanisms.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Review
- Multifunctional Irrigation-Assisted Vacuum Drainage versus Traditional Drainage in the Treatment of Odontogenic Deep Fascial Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Open necrosectomy combined with continuous positive drainage and prophylactic diverting loop ileostomy for late infected pancreatic necrosis: a retrospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Stent-Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy for Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Technical Report and a Pilot Study.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Management of Splenic Abscess after Splenic Arterial Embolization in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A 5-Year Single-Center Experience.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStep-up approach consisting of multiple minimally invasive techniques has gradually become the mainstream for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). In the present study, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel four-step approach and the conventional approach in managing IPN.
methodsAccording to the treatment strategy, consecutive patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were put into two time intervals to conduct a before-and-after comparison: the conventional group (2010-2011) and the novel four-step group (2012-2013). The conventional group was essentially open necrosectomy for any patient who failed percutaneous drainage of infected necrosis. And the novel drainage approach consisted of four different steps including percutaneous drainage, negative pressure irrigation, endoscopic necrosectomy and open necrosectomy in sequence. The primary endpoint was major complications (new-onset organ failure, sepsis or local complications, etc.). Secondary endpoints included mortality during hospitalization, need of emergency surgery, duration of organ failure and sepsis, etc.
resultsOf the 229 recruited patients, 92 were treated with the conventional approach and the remaining 137 were managed with the novel four-step approach. New-onset major complications occurred in 72 patients (78.3%) in the two-step group and 75 patients (54.7%) in the four-step group (p < 0.001). For other important endpoints, although there was no statistical difference in mortality between the two groups (p = 0.403), significantly fewer patients in the four-step group required emergency surgery when compared with the conventional group [14.6% (20/137) vs. 45.6% (42/92), p < 0.001]. In addition, stratified analysis revealed that the four-step approach group presented significantly lower incidence of new-onset organ failure and other major complications in patients with the most severe type of AP.
conclusionComparing with the conventional approach, the novel four-step approach significantly reduced the rate of new-onset major complications and requirement of emergency operations in treating IPN, especially in those with the most severe type of acute pancreatitis.
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.