Title |
Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711]
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Gastroenterology, November 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-230x-13-161 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sandra van Brunschot, Janneke van Grinsven, Rogier P Voermans, Olaf J Bakker, Marc GH Besselink, Marja A Boermeester, Thomas L Bollen, Koop Bosscha, Stefan A Bouwense, Marco J Bruno, Vincent C Cappendijk, Esther C Consten, Cornelis H Dejong, Marcel GW Dijkgraaf, Casper H van Eijck, G Willemien Erkelens, Harry van Goor, Mohammed Hadithi, Jan-Willem Haveman, Sijbrand H Hofker, Jeroen JM Jansen, Johan S Laméris, Krijn P van Lienden, Eric R Manusama, Maarten A Meijssen, Chris J Mulder, Vincent B Nieuwenhuis, Jan-Werner Poley, Rogier J de Ridder, Camiel Rosman, Alexander F Schaapherder, Joris J Scheepers, Erik J Schoon, Tom Seerden, BW Marcel Spanier, Jan Willem A Straathof, Robin Timmer, Niels G Venneman, Frank P Vleggaar, Ben J Witteman, Hein G Gooszen, Hjalmar C van Santvoort, Paul Fockens, the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group |
Abstract |
Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Mexico | 1 | 14% |
Guatemala | 1 | 14% |
Spain | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Belgium | 1 | 14% |
Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 165 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 21 | 13% |
Researcher | 19 | 11% |
Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
Other | 38 | 23% |
Unknown | 45 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 55% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
Chemical Engineering | 1 | <1% |
Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
Other | 6 | 4% |
Unknown | 55 | 33% |