Standard of Care and Outcomes of Primary Laparotomy Versus Laparotomy in Patients with Prior Open Abdominal Surgery (ReLap Study; DRKS00013001)

Background!#!Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. The aim of this trial was to determine standard of care and gain evidence of intra- and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing relaparotomy compared to primary laparotomy.!##!Methods!#!In this single-center controlled clinical trial, adult patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via relaparotomy or primary laparotomy were consecutively screened for eligibility. The perioperative course was monitored prospectively in five study visits during hospital stay and one study visit 1 year after surgery. Intraoperative standards, short and long-term outcomes were statistically explored at a level of significance of 5%.!##!Results!#!A total of 131 patients with relaparotomy and 50 patients with primary laparotomy were analyzed. In the relaparotomy group, the access to the abdomen took longer (23.5 min vs. 8.8 min; p = < 0.001) and the peritoneal adhesion index was higher (10.8 vs. 0.4; p = < 0.001). Inadvertent enterotomies were more frequent in the relaparotomy group (relaparotomy 0.3 versus primary laparotomy: 0.0; p = 0.002). The overall comprehensive complication index and rates of surgical site infection and wound dehiscence with evisceration were not different between the two groups. At long-term follow-up, rates of incisional hernia did not differ (relaparotomy: n = 12/104 (11.5%); primary laparotomy: n = 7/35 (20.0%); p = 0.208).!##!Discussion!#!In this first prospective comparison of relaparotomy with primary laparotomy, inadvertent enterotomies were more frequent in the relaparotomy group. However, contrary to previous retrospective studies, the risk of complications and incisional hernias was not increased compared to primary laparotomy.!##!Trial registration!#!Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001

Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001)

Background!#!Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy.!##!Methods!#!In this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques.!##!Results!#!A total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999).!##!Discussion!#!Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients.!##!Trial registration!#!Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. Methods: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. Discussion: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. Trial registration: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214