In 2025,the International Association of Pancreatology(IAP),in collaboration with the American Pancreatic Association,European Pancreatic Club,Indian Pancreas Club,and Japan Pancreas Society,released the International Association of Pancreatology revised guidelines on acute pancreatitis 2025.This edition represents a comprehensive revision of the 2013 guidelines,based on high-quality evidence accumulated over the past decade,particularly randomized controlled trials.The guidelines encompass 18 key areas-including pain management,fluid therapy,nutritional support,management of infected necrosis,complication control,discharge and follow-up,and recurrence prevention-offering a total of 96 recommendations that emphasize individualized treatment.These updates provide important guidance for standardizing clinical practice and improving outcomes in acute pancreatitis,while also indicating future research directions such as the development of targeted therapies.However,some recommendations remain limited by lower evidence quality,uncertain applicability in specific clinical settings,and insufficient consideration of economic burden and cost-effectiveness.

In 2025,the International Association of Pancreatology(IAP),in collaboration with the American Pancreatic Association,European Pancreatic Club,Indian Pancreas Club,and Japan Pancreas Society,released the International Association of Pancreatology revised guidelines on acute pancreatitis 2025.This edition represents a comprehensive revision of the 2013 guidelines,based on high-quality evidence accumulated over the past decade,particularly randomized controlled trials.The guidelines encompass 18 key areas-including pain management,fluid therapy,nutritional support,management of infected necrosis,complication control,discharge and follow-up,and recurrence prevention-offering a total of 96 recommendations that emphasize individualized treatment.These updates provide important guidance for standardizing clinical practice and improving outcomes in acute pancreatitis,while also indicating future research directions such as the development of targeted therapies.However,some recommendations remain limited by lower evidence quality,uncertain applicability in specific clinical settings,and insufficient consideration of economic burden and cost-effectiveness.

Objective To observe the clinical effects of chimney technique combined with thoracic endovascular aortic repair(TEVAR) in the treatment of type B aortic dissection.Methods The clinical datas of 56 patients with type B aortic dissection in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively.According to the surgical intervention method,they were divided into observation group (22 cases,TEVAR + chimney technique) and control group (34 cases,TEVAR alone).Surgery related indicators,incidence of postoperative short-term complications and mortality between the two groups were compared.Results The success rates in both groups were 100％,and the surgical time in observation group was longer than that in control group (P ＜ 0.05).There were no significant differences in blood loss,eating time,off-bed time and hospitalization time between the two groups(P ＞ 0.05).The incidence of complications of observation group and control group within 2 weeks after operation were 18.2％ and 5.8 ％ respectively,the difference was not significant(P ＞ 0.05),as well as mortality and incidence of longterm complications during the followed period (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion The perioperative indexes of single endovascular repair and its combination with chimney technique for the treatment of type B aortic dissection are similar.Chimney technique can reconstruct important branch flows,especially for patients with insufficiency of landing zone.However,particular attention needs to be paid to postoperative complications to avoid negative effect on the prognosis of patients.