Local anesthetic wound infiltration (WI) provides anesthesia for minor surgical procedures and improves postoperative analgesia as part of multimodal analgesia after general or regional anesthesia. Although pre-incisional block is preferable, in practice WI is usually done at the end of surgery. WI performed as a continuous modality reduces analgesics, prolongs the duration of analgesia, and enhances the patient’s mobilization in some cases. WI benefits are documented in open abdominal surgeries (Caesarean section, colorectal surgery, abdominal hysterectomy, herniorrhaphy), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, oncological breast surgeries, laminectomy, hallux valgus surgery, and radical prostatectomy. Surgical site infiltration requires knowledge of anatomy and the pain origin for a procedure, systematic extensive infiltration of local anesthetic in various tissue planes under direct visualization before wound closure or subcutaneously along the incision. Because the incidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity is 11% after subcutaneous WI, appropriate local anesthetic dosing is crucial. The risk of wound infection is related to the infection incidence after each particular surgery. For WI to fully meet patient and physician expectations, mastery of the technique, patient education, appropriate local anesthetic dosing and management of the surgical wound with “aseptic, non-touch” technique are needed.

The development of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections are frequent local complications in acute pancreatitis. These collections are classified as early (acute peripancreatic fluid collection or acute necrotic collection) or late (walled-off necrosis or pseudocyst). The majority of pancreatic fluid collections resolve spontaneously and do not require intervention. However, infection may require intervention. Interventions may include endoscopic or percutaneous catheter drainage, or in a next step endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy, minimally invasive or open. The best timing for the first intervention is still under investigation. Whereas some use antibiotics to postpone intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis, others drain earlier. Endoscopic drainage of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections is now the preferred approach of drainage due to reduced morbidity as compared to surgical or percutaneous drainage. However, each collection must be treated according to a tailored approach. The final treatment should take into consideration anatomic characteristics, patient preference, comorbidity profile of the patient, and physician discretion. This review summarizes the current evidence on the treatment of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections.

Background/Aim. Early assessment of severity and continuous monitoring of patients are the key factors for adequate treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study was to determine the value of procalcitonin (PCT) and Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) scoring system as prognostic markers in early stages of AP with comparison to other established indicators such as Creactive protein (CRP) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score. Methods. This prospective study included 51 patients (29 with severe AP). In the first 24 h of admission in all patients the APACHE II score and BISAP score, CRP and PCT serum concentrations were determined. The values of PCT serum concentrations and BISAP score were compared with values of CRP serum concentrations and APACHE II score, in relation to the severity and outcome of the disease. Results. Values of PCT, CRP, BISAP score and APACHE II score, measured at 24 h of admission, were significantly elevated in patients with severe form of the disease. In predicting severity of AP at 24 h of admission, sensitivity and specificity of the BISAP score were 74% and 59%, respectively, APACHE II score 89% and 69%, respectively, CRP 75% and 86%, respectively, and PCT 86% and 63%, respectively. It was found that PCT is highly significant predictor of the disease outcome (p < 0,001). Conclusion. In early assessment of AP severity, PCT has better predictive value than CRP, and similar to the APACHE II score. APACHE II score is a stronger predictor of the disease severity than BISAP score. PCT is a good predictor of AP outcome.