OBJECTIVETo compare the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous US- or CT-guided drainage and laparotomy for patients with infective pancreatic necrosis.

METHODSData of 90 infective pancreatic necrosis patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2009 were included. They were divided into two groups by the different treatment choices. Twenty-seven patients in the percutaneous group received percutaneous US- or CT-guided drainage as first choice. After that a sump suction apparatus was applied for controlled drainage. If no improvement was achieved after 3 days, they would received operation soon. While patients in the laparotomy group received surgical drainage at the time when the diagnosis of infected pancreatic necrosis was confirmed. Continuous drainage was also applied for these ones.

RESULTSThe percutaneous group had a significant low rate of reoperation (7.1% vs. 14.3%, P < 0.05) and postoperative residual abscesses (7.1% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.05). Furthermore, 48.1% of patients in percutaneous group successfully avoid laparotomy. In the regard of complications, the percutaneous group presented lower incidence of both single organ dysfunction (7.4% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.05), intestinal fistula (7.4% vs. 27.0%, P < 0.05) and long-term complications (3.7% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.05). In addition, the percutaneous group costed less medical resources as evidenced by shorter ICU duration (21.2 ± 9.7 vs. 28.7 ± 12.1, P < 0.01), shorter hospital duration (48.2 ± 12.5 vs. 59.6 ± 17.5, P < 0.05) and less expenditure (191 762 ± 5892 vs. 341 689 ± 10 854, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONSPercutaneous drainage can effectively lower the surgical rates and the rates of complications and reoperations in patients with infective pancreatic necrosis. Besides that, it could also reduce the cost of medical resources.