We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Letters |

Necrosectomy for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Peter J. Fagenholz, MD; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo, MD
JAMA. 2012;307(24):2584-2585. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5970.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor: The findings of the PENGUIN (Pancreatitis, Endoscopic Transgastric vs Primary Necrosectomy in Patients With Infected Necrosis) trial1 suggest that endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy reduces death or complications compared with surgical necrosectomy for the treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. These results are heavily influenced by an unusually high 40% mortality rate in the surgical necrosectomy group, which we believe calls into question the reported superiority of endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy. The latest published data from our institution show an 11% mortality rate after open surgical necrosectomy in 167 patients.2 Other contemporary surgical series have demonstrated a mortality of 4% to 18%.3 Based on these data, the advantages of endoscopic necrosectomy are less clear. Future studies will continue to define the role of endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, but unless surgical therapy is performed with acceptable mortality, the effect will be questionable. At centers achieving comparable results with other techniques, the limitations of endoscopic transgastric debridement—the need for multiple procedures, the requirement for favorable anatomy, and the difficulty of acquiring adequate expertise—may supersede small advantages in morbidity and mortality.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




June 27, 2012
Olaf J. Bakker, MD; Hjalmar C. van Santvoort, MD, PhD; Marc G. Besselink, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2012;307(24):2584-2585. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5974.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...