Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy With Modified Blumgart Pancreaticojejunostomy
Published on: June 17, 2018
Is Contemporary Open Pancreatic Necrosectomy Still Useful In The Minimally Invasive Era?
Caihong Ning1, Zefang Sun1, Dingcheng Shen1
1Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China; Department of General Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China; Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China; National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China.
Background:
Previous studies have shown that open pancreatic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis was associated with high morbidity and mortality. However, these results were mostly concluded from historical cohorts with traditional early necrosectomy in the absence of a minimally invasive step-up approach.
Objective:
To explore the value of contemporary open pancreatic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis in the minimally invasive era.
Methods:
A post hoc analysis was performed in a prospective maintained database of 320 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis from January 2011 to December 2022 at a large Chinese tertiary hospital.
Results:
A total of 320 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis received either a minimally invasive step-up approach (245, 76.6%) or open pancreatic necrosectomy (75, 23.4%), which included upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy (32, 10.0%) and salvage open pancreatic necrosectomy (43, 13.4%). Upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy was associated with similar morbidity and mortality rates but fewer surgical interventions compared with a minimally invasive step-up approach. However, salvage open pancreatic necrosectomy was associated with significantly higher mortality (48.8% vs 18.8%, P = .007), gastrointestinal fistula (44.2% vs 18.8%, P = .021), hemorrhage (48.8% vs 15.6%, P = .003), and intensive care unit stay (25 vs 7 days, P = .040) compared with upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy. Multivariate analysis suggested that multiple organ failure (hazard ratio = 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-18.2, P = .013) and synchronous critical acute pancreatitis (hazard ratio = 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-8.6, P = .040) were 2 independent risk factors of death for patients who received open pancreatic necrosectomy.
Conclusion:
Patients undergoing upfront open pancreatic necrosectomy received fewer surgical interventions with comparable efficacy compared to the minimally invasive step-up approach. Salvage open pancreatic necrosectomy was potentially lifesaving, though it carried high morbidity and mortality. Multiple organ failure and synchronous critical acute pancreatitis were 2 independent risk factors of death for patients who received open pancreatic necrosectomy.
