“Comparison studies in animal models and clinical experience featuring fluorescein flowmetry have consistently demonstrated the superiority of dye-based perfusion monitoring for intraoperative bowel assessment as compared to standard clinical criteria, DUS, and pulse oximetry/PPG. (45,46,47,53,54) However, these results are not universal, with some large animal models demonstrating no difference between fluorescein, DUS, and PPG, and an additional study showing that DUS actually outperforms fluorescein for intraoperative bowel assessment. (13,18,43)” (p. 312)
BACKGROUND: The 2010 randomized PANTER trial in (infected) necrotizing pancreatitis found a minimally invasive step-up approach to be superior to primary open necrosectomy for the primary combined endpoint of mortality and major complications, but long-term results are unknown.
NEW FINDINGS: With extended follow-up, in the step-up group, patients had fewer incisional hernias, less exocrine insufficiency and a trend towards less endocrine insufficiency. No differences between groups were seen for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic endoscopic or surgical interventions, quality of life or costs.
IMPACT: Considering both short and long-term results, the step-up approach is superior to open necrosectomy for the treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.
Results: Amongst 237 patients, mortality was 11.8% (28/237) and morbidity 54.5% (130/237). Absolute neutrophil count < 500 cells/μL (50% vs. 20.6%, P < 0.01) and perforated viscus (35.7% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.01) were associated with mortality. Perforated viscus (25.4% vs. 7.5%) was also associated with morbidity. Urgent operations were associated with higher morbidity (63.6% vs 34.7%, P < 0.001) and mortality (16.4% vs 1.4%, P = 0.002) when compared to elective operations. Transfer from an outside hospital (22.3% vs. 11.2%, P = 0.02) and longer median time from admission to operation (2 days (IQR 0-6) vs. 1 day (IQR 0-3), P < 0.01) were associated with morbidity. An ANC threshold of 350 provided the best discrimination for mortality.
Conclusions: Elective surgery in the appropriately chosen neutropenic patient is relatively safe. For patients with obvious surgical pathology, we advocate for earlier operation and a lower threshold for surgical consultation in an effort expedite the diagnosis and necessary treatment.
“Intestinal malrotation is a rare condition that develops during fetal development because of incomplete intestinal rotation or a lack of intestinal rotation around the superior mesenteric artery. Presentation in adulthood, in general, is abnormal and presentation with volvulus is rare. We demonstrate an open Ladd procedure with inversion appendectomy and reduction of paraduodenal hernia of an adult with malrotation with volvulus.”
Figure 1. Causes of enterocutaneous fistula between 1987 and 2010. IBD indicates inflammatory bowel disease; other includes radiation, neoplasm, and trauma. Percentages may total more than 100% owing to the fact that some patients’ ECFs were secondary to multiple causes.
Results: Of 23,744 patients presenting with AMI, 4665 underwent interventional treatment from 2005 through 2009. Of these patients, 57.1% were female, and the mean age was 70.5 years. A total of 679 patients underwent vascular intervention; 514 (75.7%) underwent open surgery and 165 (24.3%) underwent endovascular treatment overall during the study period. The proportion of patients undergoing endovascular repair increased from 11.9% of patients in 2005 to 30.0% in 2009. Severity of comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson index, did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Mortality was significantly more commonly associated with open revascularization compared with endovascular intervention (39.3% vs 24.9%; P = .01). Length of stay was also significantly longer in the patient group undergoing open revascularization (12.9 vs 17.1 days; P = .006). During the study time period, 14.4% of patients undergoing endovascular procedures required bowel resection compared with 33.4% for open revascularization (P < .001). Endovascular repair was also less commonly associated with requirement for TPN support (13.7% vs 24.4%; P = .025).
Conclusions: Endovascular intervention for AMI had increased significantly in the modern era. Among AMI patients undergoing revascularization, endovascular treatment was associated with decreased mortality and shorter length of stay. Furthermore, endovascular intervention was associated with lower rates of bowel resection and need for TPN. Further research is warranted to determine if increased use of endovascular repair could improve overall and gastrointestinal outcomes among patients requiring vascular repair for AMI.