Minimally invasive necrosectomy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies

Roberto Cirocchi, Stefano Trastulli, Jacopo Desiderio, Carlo Boselli, Amilcare Parisi, Giuseppe Noya, Massimo Falconi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to compare minimally invasive necrosectomy (MIN) versus open necrosectomy (ON) surgery for infected necrosis of acute pancreatitis. METHODS: One randomized controlled trial and 3 clinical controlled trials were selected, with a total of 336 patients (215 patients who underwent MIN and 121 patients underwent ON) included after searching in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BioMed Central, Science Citation Index (from inception to August 2011), Greynet, SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), National Technological Information Service, British Library Integrated catalogue, and the Current Controlled Trials. Statistical analysis is performed using the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: After the analysis of the data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the MIN in terms of: incidence of multiple organ failure (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39) (P

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)8-20
Number of pages13
JournalSurgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy and Percutaneous Techniques
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2013

Keywords

  • Acute pancreatitis
  • minimally invasive necrosectomy
  • necrosectomy
  • open necrosectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Minimally invasive necrosectomy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this