Minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic necrosis

AIM: To systematically review these minimally invasive approaches to infected pancreatic necrosis. METHODS: We used the MEDLINE database to investigate studies between 1996 and 2010 with greater than 10 patients that examined these techniques. Using a combination of Boolean operators, reports were retrieved addressing percutaneous therapy (341 studies), endoscopic necrosectomy (574 studies), laparoscopic necrosectomy via a transperitoneal approach (148 studies), and retroperitoneal necrosectomy (194 studies). Only cohorts with at least 10 or more patients were included. Non-English papers, letters, animal studies, duplicate series and reviews without original data were excluded, leaving a total of 27 studies for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 947 patients total were examined (eight studies on percutaneous approach; ten studies on endoscopic necrosectomy; two studies on laparoscopic necrosectomy via a transperitoneal approach; five studies on retroperitoneal necrosectomy; and two studies on a combined percutaneous-retroperitoneal approach). Success rate, complications, mortality, and number of procedures were outcomes that were included in the review. We found that most published reports were retrospective in nature, and thus, susceptible to selection and publication bias. Few reports examined these techniques in a comparative, prospective manner. CONCLUSION: Each minimally invasive approach though was found to be safe and feasible in multiple reports. With these new techniques, treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis remains a challenge. We advocate a multidisciplinary approach to this complex problem with treatment individualized to each patient.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery on the treatment of benign esophageal disorders

Thanks to the development of minimally invasive surgery, the last 20 years have witnessed a change in the treatment algorithm of benign esophageal disorders. Today a laparoscopic operation is the treatment of choice for esophageal achalasia and for most patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Because the pathogenesis of achalasia is unknown, treatment is palliative and aims to improve esophageal emptying by decreasing the functional obstruction at the level of the gastro-esophageal junction. The refinement of minimally invasive techniques accompanied by large, multiple randomized control trials with long-term outcome has allowed the laparoscopic Heller myotomy and partial fundoplication to become the treatment of choice for achalasia compared to endoscopic procedures, including endoscopic botulinum toxin injection and pneumatic dilatation. Patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux need to undergo a thorough preoperative workup. After establishing diagnosis, treatment for gastroesophageal reflux should be individualized to patient characteristics and a decision about an operation made jointly between surgeon and patient. The indications for surgery have changed in the last twenty years. In the past, surgery was often considered for patients who did not respond well to acid reducing medications. Today, the best candidate for surgery is the patient who has excellent control of symptoms with proton pump inhibitors. The minimally invasive approach to antireflux surgery has allowed surgeons to control reflux in a safe manner, with excellent long term outcomes. Like achalasia and gastroesophageal reflux, the treatment of patients with paraesophageal hernias has also seen a major evolution. The laparoscopic approach has been shown to be safe, and durable, with good relief of symptoms over the long-term. The most significant controversy with laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is the optimal crural repair. This manuscript reviews the evolution of these techniques.