Department of Clinical Sciences (Surgery), Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Ann Surg. 2010 Jan;251(1):6-17. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c72b79.
Throughout much of history, surgery of the pancreas was restricted to drainage of abscesses and treatment of traumatic wounds. At the turn of the 20th century under the impetus of anesthesia, such surgical stalwarts as Mayo Robson, Mickulicz, and Moynihan began to deploy laparotomy and gauze drainage in an effort to salvage patients afflicted with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Over the next thirty years, surgical intervention in SAP became the therapy for choice, despite surgical mortality rates that often exceeded 50%.When the discovery of the serum test for amylase revealed that clinically milder forms of acute pancreatitis existed that could respond to nonoperative therapy, a wave of conservatism emerged, and, for the next quarter century, surgical intervention for SAP was rarely practiced. However, by the 1960s, conservative mortality rates for SAP were reported to be as high as 60% to 80%, leading surgeons to not only refine the indications for surgery in SAP, but also to consider new approaches. Extensive pancreatic resections for SAP became the vogue in continental surgical centers in the 1960s and 1970s, but often resulted in high mortality rates and inadvertent removal of viable tissue.Accurate diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis by dynamic CT led to new approaches for management. Some surgeons recommended restricting intervention to those with documented infected necrosis, and proposed delayed exploration employing sequestrectomy and open-packing. Others advocated debridement early in the course of the disease for all patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, regardless of the status of infection. In the 1990s, however, a series of prospective studies emerged proving that nonoperative management of patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis was superior to surgical intervention, and that delayed intervention provided improved surgical mortality rates.The surgical odyssey in managing the necrotizing form of SAP, from simple drainage, to resection, to debridement, to sequestrectomy, although somewhat tortuous, is nevertheless an notable example of how evidence-based knowledge leads to improvement in patient care. Today's 10% to 20% surgical mortality rates reflect not only considerable advances in surgical management, but also highlight concomitant improvements in fluid therapy, antibiotics, and intensive care. Although history documents the important contributions that surgical practitioners have made to acute pancreatitis and its complications, surgeons are rarely complacent, and the recent emergence of minimally invasive techniques holds future promise for patients afflicted with this "... most formidable of catastrophes."
在历史的大部分时间里,胰腺手术仅限于脓肿引流和治疗创伤性伤口。在 20 世纪之交,在麻醉的推动下,像 Mayo Robson、Mickulicz 和 Moynihan 这样的外科医生开始使用剖腹手术和纱布引流来挽救患有重症急性胰腺炎 (SAP) 的患者。在接下来的三十年里,尽管手术死亡率经常超过 50%,但外科干预已成为 SAP 的治疗选择。当血清淀粉酶检测发现存在临床较轻的急性胰腺炎形式,可以对其进行非手术治疗时,出现了一波保守主义,在接下来的四分之一个世纪里,SAP 的外科干预很少进行。然而,到 20 世纪 60 年代,报道 SAP 的保守治疗死亡率高达 60%至 80%,这不仅导致外科医生改进 SAP 手术的适应证,而且还考虑了新的方法。20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代,大陆外科中心广泛进行 SAP 胰腺切除术,但死亡率往往很高,并且无意中切除了有活力的组织。通过动态 CT 对胰腺坏死的准确诊断导致了新的治疗方法。一些外科医生建议将干预仅限于有记录的感染性坏死患者,并建议采用隔离切除术和开放包装进行延迟探查。其他人则主张对所有患有坏死性胰腺炎的患者在疾病早期进行清创术,无论感染状态如何。然而,在 20 世纪 90 年代,一系列前瞻性研究表明,无菌性胰腺坏死患者的非手术治疗优于手术干预,延迟干预可提高手术死亡率。管理坏死性 SAP 的外科探索之旅,从简单引流到切除、清创术再到隔离切除术,虽然有些曲折,但它仍然是一个很好的例子,说明了循证知识如何导致患者治疗的改善。今天的 10%至 20%的手术死亡率不仅反映了外科管理的重大进步,还突出了液体治疗、抗生素和重症监护的协同改善。尽管历史记录了外科医生对急性胰腺炎及其并发症的重要贡献,但外科医生很少自满,最近微创技术的出现为患有这种“最具灾难性的灾难”的患者带来了未来的希望。