PANCREATIC PSEUDOCYSTS: OPTIMAL TIME OF SURGERY

Pancreatic pseudocysts occur as a complication of acute or chronic pancreatitis. Despite constant development of minimally invasive techniques, surgery is still the most important therapeutic option for these patients. An optimal time for pseudocyst operative treatment varies depending on the lesion cause, stage, and presence of complications. The aim of our study was to determine the importance of the time of surgery in relation to the pseudocyst type and stage for the treatment outcome. We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical records of 68 patients operated for pseudocysts at the Surgery Clinic, Clinical Center Nis. From among 50 patients that underwent elective surgery, external pseudocyst drainage was done in 6 due to its „immature“, thin wall. Further, external drainage was performed in 15 urgently operated patients with complicated pseudocysts. The rest of the patients from both groups received an internal drainage procedure. There were no deaths. A controlled postoperative pancreatic fistula occured in 2 patients after elective internal drainage surgery and in 7 patients with complicated pseudocysts in whom urgent external drainage was done. Acute and chronic pseudocysts older than 6 to 8 weeks with formed mature capsule that do not show the tendency to resolve sponta- neously require surgical or endoscopic drainage. Internal surgical drainage procedure should not be performed for immature and complicated pseudocysts with thin wall, which have to be treated with external drainage. An optimal time of surgery for pseudocysts may be crucial for the treatment success. Acta Medica Medianae 2017;56(4):61-65.

[1]  T. Vail,et al.  Periprosthetic Fractures: A Common Problem with a Disproportionately High Impact on Healthcare Resources. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  G. Lewis,et al.  Tangential Bicortical Locked Fixation Improves Stability in Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Biomechanical Study , 2015, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[3]  James P. Waddell,et al.  Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review , 2015, International Orthopaedics.

[4]  S. Marya,et al.  Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study. , 2015, Indian journal of orthopaedics.

[5]  M. Faschingbauer,et al.  Mechanical complications with one hundred and thirty eight (antibiotic-laden) cement spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty , 2015, International Orthopaedics.

[6]  S. Milenkovic,et al.  [Dynamic internal fixation of the periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty]. , 2004, Acta chirurgica Iugoslavica.

[7]  D. Berry,et al.  Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Around Well-Fixed Implants: Use of Cortical Onlay Allografts with or without a Plate , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  M A Mont,et al.  Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty. A statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients. , 1994, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  E. Chao,et al.  Bypassing femoral cortical defects with cemented intramedullary stems , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  M. B. Coventry,et al.  Femoral and pelvic fractures after total hip arthroplasty. , 1974, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  I. Horwitz,et al.  Artificial hip prosthesis in acute and nonunion fractures of the femoral neck: follow-up study of seventy cases. , 1954, Journal of the American Medical Association.