Matteo Matteucci, Maria Chiara Ranucci, Salvatore Guarino, Bruno Cirillo, Luca Properzi, Justin Davies, Pietro Ursi, Vito D'Andrea, Roberto Cirocchi
{"title":"微创入路与开放入路在坏死性急性胰腺炎治疗中的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Matteo Matteucci, Maria Chiara Ranucci, Salvatore Guarino, Bruno Cirillo, Luca Properzi, Justin Davies, Pietro Ursi, Vito D'Andrea, Roberto Cirocchi","doi":"10.14701/ahbps.25-068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases, with necrotizing pancreatitis affecting 10% to 15% of patients. Over recent years, the management of pancreatic necrosis has evolved significantly, with a growing shift towards minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive approach compared to open surgical approach in managing necrotizing acute pancreatitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including 22 studies. Both fixed-effect and random-effect models were applied to analyze nine outcomes evaluated. Homogeneity among studies was assessed using χ<sup>2</sup> tests, I<sup>2</sup> statistics, and <i>p</i>-values. The risk of postoperative mortality, intra-abdominal bleeding, pancreatic and enteric fistulas, perforation, new-onset diabetes, and postoperative sepsis was significantly lower in the minimally invasive approach group than in the open surgical approach group. A minimally invasive approach to necrotizing acute pancreatitis might be associated with a lower risk of complications compared to an open surgical approach. However, most of the included studies were observational studies. Additional randomized trials are needed to further confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":72220,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally invasive approach versus open approach in the management of necrotizing acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Matteucci, Maria Chiara Ranucci, Salvatore Guarino, Bruno Cirillo, Luca Properzi, Justin Davies, Pietro Ursi, Vito D'Andrea, Roberto Cirocchi\",\"doi\":\"10.14701/ahbps.25-068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases, with necrotizing pancreatitis affecting 10% to 15% of patients. Over recent years, the management of pancreatic necrosis has evolved significantly, with a growing shift towards minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive approach compared to open surgical approach in managing necrotizing acute pancreatitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including 22 studies. Both fixed-effect and random-effect models were applied to analyze nine outcomes evaluated. Homogeneity among studies was assessed using χ<sup>2</sup> tests, I<sup>2</sup> statistics, and <i>p</i>-values. The risk of postoperative mortality, intra-abdominal bleeding, pancreatic and enteric fistulas, perforation, new-onset diabetes, and postoperative sepsis was significantly lower in the minimally invasive approach group than in the open surgical approach group. A minimally invasive approach to necrotizing acute pancreatitis might be associated with a lower risk of complications compared to an open surgical approach. However, most of the included studies were observational studies. Additional randomized trials are needed to further confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.25-068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.25-068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Minimally invasive approach versus open approach in the management of necrotizing acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases, with necrotizing pancreatitis affecting 10% to 15% of patients. Over recent years, the management of pancreatic necrosis has evolved significantly, with a growing shift towards minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive approach compared to open surgical approach in managing necrotizing acute pancreatitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, including 22 studies. Both fixed-effect and random-effect models were applied to analyze nine outcomes evaluated. Homogeneity among studies was assessed using χ2 tests, I2 statistics, and p-values. The risk of postoperative mortality, intra-abdominal bleeding, pancreatic and enteric fistulas, perforation, new-onset diabetes, and postoperative sepsis was significantly lower in the minimally invasive approach group than in the open surgical approach group. A minimally invasive approach to necrotizing acute pancreatitis might be associated with a lower risk of complications compared to an open surgical approach. However, most of the included studies were observational studies. Additional randomized trials are needed to further confirm these findings.