An endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM\nthe incidence of acute pancreatitis is rising across the world, thus further increasing the burden on healthcare services. Approximately 10% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), which is the leading cause of high mortality in the late phase. There is currently no consensus with regard to the use of endoscopic or minimally invasive surgery as the first-line therapy of choice for INP. However, more clinical research with regard to the superiority of an endoscopic approach has been recently published. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine which of the two treatments leads to a better prognosis.\n\n\nMETHODS\nfour databases (Medline, SINOMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies from 1980 to 2018, comparing endoscopic and minimally invasive surgery for INP.\n\n\nRESULTS\ntwo randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven clinical cohort studies were included. After the analysis of data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the endoscopic approach in terms of pancreatic fistulas (OR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.30, p < 0.001) and the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -24.72, 95% CI = -33.87 to -15.57, p < 0.001). No marked differences were found in terms of mortality, multiple organ failure, intra-abdominal bleeding, enterocutaneous fistula, recurrence of pseudocysts, and length of stay (LOS) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), endocrine insufficiency and exocrine insufficiency.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\ncompared with minimally invasive surgery, an endoscopic approach evidently improved short-term outcomes for infected necrotizing pancreatitis, including pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay. Furthermore, relevant multicenter RCTs are eager to validate these findings.