ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpen surgical debridement was the main treatment option for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). However, it was associated with significant trauma, leading to a higher mortality rate. With the development of minimally invasive surgery, the step-up treatment principle centered around minimally invasive intervention, significantly reducing the incidence of complications and mortality rates among IPN patients. However, few studies have reported the efficacy of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (LRPN), a new minimally invasive debridement technique, in IPN patients with duodenal fistula (DF)-a severe complication of IPN. Therefore, we analyzed the effectiveness and safety of LRPN for treating IPN with DF and discussed the impact of DF on patient prognosis.
methodsWe retrospectively examined patients diagnosed with IPN between 2018 and 2023. The patients were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of DF. Clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, clinical outcomes, and follow-up information were analyzed. A 1:1 propensity score-matching (PSM) method was used to assess differences in outcome indicators more accurately.
resultsA total of 197 patients were examined. After PSM, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in in-hospital mortality rate, incidence of single organ failure, rate of postoperative severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ 3), and intensive care unit stay (P > 0.05). However, the incidence of multiorgan failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, number of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) procedures, surgery cases, hospital stay, and hospitalization costs were higher in the DF group (P < 0.05). Of these patients, 71.6% (n = 141) were treated with PCD + LRPN, with a conversion rate of 6.38% to open surgery. A higher proportion of patients in the non-DF group showed improved clinical outcomes solely with PCD (22.6% vs. 2.4%, P < 0.05), whereas a higher proportion of patients in the DF group underwent PCD + LRPN (88.1% vs. 67.1%, P < 0.05). Both groups showed a significant reduction in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 72 h postoperatively.
conclusionsFor patients with IPN and DF, the LRPN-centered step-up strategy was safe and effective. DF prolongs hospital stay and increases hospitalization costs for patients.
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.