Search

Background. Infection in acute pancreatitis will worsen the disease prognosis. The aim of our study was to analyze the role of procalcitonin as a prognostic biomarker for infections and clinical severity. Method. A prospective single-cohort observational study of patients diagnosed of acute pancreatitis (n = 152) was designed. PCT determination was tested on admission (first 72 hours). Infections (biliary, extrapancreatic and infected pancreatic necrosis), need for antibiotics, need for urgent ERCP and severity scores for acute pancreatitis was assessed. ROC curves were designed and the area under the curve was calculated. Logistic regression for multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the association between procalcitonin optimal cut-off level and major complications. Results. PCT > 0.68mg/dL had higher incidence of global infection, acute cholangitis, bacteraemia, infected pancreatic necrosis, use of antibiotics in general, and need for urgent ERCP. In the multivariate regressions analysis, PCT > 0.68mg/dL at admission demonstrated to be a strong risk factor for complications in acute pancreatitis. Discussion. PCT levels can be used as a reliable laboratory test to predict infections and the clinical severity of acute pancreatitis. High levels of PCT predict antibiotics prescription as well as the need for urgent ERCP in patients with concomitant clinically severe cholangitis.

Objective Our main purpose was to compare the modified computed tomography severity index (MCTSI), computed tomography severity index (CTSI), and acute physiological and chronic health evaluation (APACHE)-II predictions regarding severity according to the revised Atlanta classification 2012 and local complications in acute pancreatitis in a consecutive prospective cohort. Methods One hundred and forty-nine patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis were prospectively enrolled. APACHE-II, MCTSI, and CTSI were calculated for all cases. Severity parameters included persistent organ or multiorgan failure, length of hospitalization, the need for intensive care, death, and local complications (intervention against necrosis and infected necrosis). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated and the value of scoring systems was compared. Results Both CTSI and MCTSI were associated significantly with all the evaluated severity parameters and showed a correlation between imaging severity and the worst clinical outcomes. Persistent organ failure, persistent multiorgan failure, and death were found in 30 (20.1%), 20 (13.4%), and 13 (8.7%) patients, respectively. The most common extrapancreatic finding was pleural effusion in 76 (51.0%) patients. The AUROC for CTSI was higher for predicting persistent organ failure (0.749, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.640-0.857), death (AUROC 0.793, 95% CI 0.650-0.936), intervention against necrosis (AUROC 0.862, 95% CI 0.779-0.945), and infected necrosis (AUROC 0.883, 95% CI 0.882-0.930). Conclusions CT indexes outperformed the classic APACHE-II score for evaluating severity parameters in acute pancreatitis, with a slight advantage of CTSI over MCTSI. CTSI accurately predicted pancreatic infections and the need for intervention.

Background: Robotic bariatric surgery (RBS) has increased in recent years. Many doubts continue to exist regarding its utility in terms of postoperative complications, costs and technical aspects. RBS has increased its number and shows a more technical challenge associated with more post-operative complications compared to primary bariatric surgery. We herein present a single institution experience and review to describe its utility in revisional surgery. Methods: A retrospective review of our experience and a review of the literature has been conducted to evaluate the impact of robotic revisional surgery in the bariatric field. Results: A total of 17 patients (5 female and 12 male) were operated on. Most frequent surgery was conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass (n=9). No leaks were found nor severe complications. A systematic review showed similar results including a decreased number for complications when performing robotic revisional surgery. Conclusions: Revisional robotic surgery shows better results compared to standard laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery in terms of efficacy, safety and hospital stay. No differences were seen in rates of mortality, morbidity and reintervention between both approaches. We encourage surgeons to learn to perform the robotic technique as part of the process of democratization and standardization of bariatric surgery.