RESUMO A necrose pancreática ocorre em 15% das pancreatites agudas. A presença de infecção é o fator mais importante na evolução da pancreatite. Confirmar o diagnóstico de infecção ainda é um desafio. A mortalidade na necrose infectada é de 30% e na vigência de disfunção orgânica, chega a 70%. Nas últimas décadas, ocorreu uma verdadeira revolução no tratamento da necrose pancreática infectada. Mesmo assim, persiste o desafio e há múltiplas questões ainda não resolvidas: tratamento exclusivo com antibiótico, drenagem percutânea guiada por tomografia, drenagem por via endoscópica, desbridamento extra-peritoneal vídeo-assistido, acesso extra-peritoneal, necrosectomia por via aberta? Foi proposto o tratamento por etapas, “step up approach”, iniciando-se com as medidas menos invasivas e reservando-se a intervenção operatória para os casos em que o procedimento anterior não resolver definitivamente o problema. A indicação e o momento da intervenção devem ser determinados pela evolução clínica. O ideal é que a intervenção seja feita apenas depois da quarta semana de evolução, quando já existe melhor delimitação da necrose. O tratamento deve ser individualizado. Não existe um procedimento que deva ser o primeiro e a melhor opção para todos os doentes. O objetivo deste trabalho é fazer uma análise crítica do estado atual do tratamento da necrose pancreática infectada.

ABSTRACT Pancreatic necrosis occurs in 15% of acute pancreatitis. The presence of infection is the most important factor in the evolution of pancreatitis. The diagnosis of infection is still challenging. Mortality in infected necrosis is 20%; in the presence of organic dysfunction, mortality reaches 60%. In the last three decades, there has been a real revolution in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. However, the challenges persist and there are many unsolved questions: antibiotic treatment alone, tomography-guided percutaneous drainage, endoscopic drainage, video-assisted extraperitoneal debridement, extraperitoneal access, open necrosectomy? A step up approach has been proposed, beginning with less invasive procedures and reserving the operative intervention for patients in which the previous procedure did not solve the problem definitively. Indication and timing of the intervention should be determined by the clinical course. Ideally, the intervention should be done only after the fourth week of evolution, when it is observed a better delimitation of necrosis. Treatment should be individualized. There is no procedure that should be the first and best option for all patients. The objective of this work is to critically review the current state of the art of the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To present our experience in the management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis without drainage. METHODS: The records of patients with pancreatic necrosis admitted to our facility from 2011 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 61 patients with pancreatic necrosis. Six patients with pancreatic necrosis and gas in the retroperitoneum were treated exclusively with clinical support without any type of drainage. Only 2 patients had an APACHE II score >8. The first computed tomography scan revealed the presence of gas in 5 patients. The Balthazar computed tomography severity index score was >9 in 5 of the 6 patients. All patients were treated with antibiotics for at least 3 weeks. Blood cultures were positive in only 2 patients. Parenteral nutrition was not used in these patients. The length of hospital stay exceeded three weeks for 5 patients; 3 patients had to be readmitted. A cholecystectomy was performed after necrosis was completely resolved; pancreatitis recurred in 2 patients before the operation. No patients died. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, infected pancreatic necrosis (gas in the retroperitoneum) can be treated without percutaneous drainage or any additional surgical intervention. Intervention procedures should be performed for patients who exhibit clinical and laboratory deterioration.

Background: Feedback is one of the most important tools to improve teaching in medical education. Aim: To develop an instrument to assess the performance of clinical postgraduate teachers in medical specialties. Material and Methods: A qualitative methodology consisting in interviews and focus-groups followed by a quantitative methodology to generate consensus, was employed. After generating the instrument, psychometric tests were performed to assess the construct validity (factor analysis) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha). Results: Experts in medical education, teachers and residents of a medical school participated in interviews and focus groups. With this information, 26 categories (79 items) were proposed and reduced to 14 items (Likert scale 1-5) by an expert’s Delphi panel, generating the MEDUC-PG14 survey, which was answered by 123 residents from different programs of medical specialties. Construct validity was carried out. Factor analysis showed three domains: Teaching and evaluation, respectful behavior towards patients and health care team, and providing feedback. The global score was 4.46 ± 0.94 (89% of the maximum). One teachers’ strength, as evaluated by their residents was “respectful behavior” with 4.85 ± 0.42 (97% of the maximum). “Providing feedback” obtained 4.09 ± 1.0 points (81.8% of the maximum). MEDUC-PG14 survey had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.947. Conclusions: MEDUC-PG14 survey is a useful and reliable guide for teacher evaluation in medical specialty programs. Also provides feedback to improve educational skills of postgraduate clinical teachers.