ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Non-surgical methods such as percutaneous drainage are crucial for the treatment of patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the optimal timing for abdominal paracentesis catheter placement and drainage. AIM: To explore the influence of different timing for abdominal paracentesis catheter placement and drainage in SAP complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation. METHODS: Using a retrospective approach, 184 cases of SAP complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation were enrolled and categorized into three groups based on the timing of catheter placement: group A (catheter placement within 2 d of symptom onset, n = 89), group B (catheter placement between days 3 and 5 after symptom onset, n = 55), and group C (catheter placement between days 6 and 7 after symptom onset, n = 40). The differences in progression rate, mortality rate, and the number of cases with organ dysfunction were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: The progression rate of group A was significantly lower than those in groups B and groups C (2.25% vs 21.82% and 32.50%, P < 0.05). Further, the proportion of patients with at least one organ dysfunction in group A was significantly lower than those in groups B and groups C (41.57% vs 70.91% and 75.00%, P < 0.05). The mortality rates in group A, group B, and group C were similar (P > 0.05). At postoperative day 3, the levels of C-reactive protein (55.41 ± 19.32 mg/L vs 82.25 ± 20.41 mg/L and 88.65 ± 19.14 mg/L, P < 0.05), procalcitonin (1.36 ± 0.51 ng/mL vs 3.20 ± 0.97 ng/mL and 3.41 ± 0.98 ng/mL, P < 0.05), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (15.12 ± 6.63 pg/L vs 22.26 ± 9.96 pg/L and 23.39 ± 9.12 pg/L, P < 0.05), interleukin-6 (332.14 ± 90.16 ng/L vs 412.20 ± 88.50 ng/L and 420.08 ± 87.65ng/L, P < 0.05), interleukin-8 (415.54 ± 68.43 ng/L vs 505.80 ± 66.90 ng/L and 510.43 ± 68.23ng/L, P < 0.05) and serum amyloid A (270.06 ± 78.49 mg/L vs 344.41 ± 81.96 mg/L and 350.60 ± 80.42 mg/L, P < 0.05) were significantly lower in group A compared to those in groups B and group C. The length of hospital stay in group A was significantly lower than those in groups B and group C (24.50 ± 4.16 d vs 35.54 ± 6.62 d and 38.89 ± 7.10 d, P < 0.05). The hospitalization expenses in group A were also significantly lower than those in groups B and groups C [2.70 (1.20, 3.55) ten-thousand-yuan vs 5.50 (2.98, 7.12) ten-thousand-yuan and 6.00 (3.10, 8.05) ten-thousand-yuan, P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in group A was markedly lower than that in group C (5.62% vs 25.00%, P < 0.05), and similar to group B (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous catheter drainage for the treatment of SAP complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation is most effective when performed within 2 d of onset.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We compared the diagnostic values of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating breast masses. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed mammography, MRI, and histopathological data for 377 patients with breast masses on mammography, including 73 benign and 304 malignant masses. RESULTS: The sensitivities and negative predictive values (NPVs) were significantly higher for MRI compared with mammography for detecting breast cancer (98.4% vs. 89.8% and 87.8% vs. 46.6%, respectively). The specificity and positive predictive values (PPV) were similar for both techniques. Compared with mammography alone, mammography plus MRI improved the specificity (67.1% vs. 37.0%) and PPV (91.8% vs. 85.6%), but there was no significant difference in sensitivity or NPV. Compared with MRI alone, the combination significantly improved the specificity (67.1% vs. 49.3%), but the sensitivity (88.5% vs. 98.4%) and NPV (58.3% vs. 87.8%) were reduced, and the PPV was similar in both groups. There was no significant difference between mammography and MRI in terms of sensitivity or specificity among 81 patients with breast masses with calcification. CONCLUSION: Breast MRI improved the sensitivity and NPV for breast cancer detection. Combining MRI and mammography improved the specificity and PPV, but MRI offered no advantage in patients with breast masses with calcification.
