First steps of laparoscopic surgery in Lubumbashi: problems encountered and preliminary results

For many reasons, laparoscopic surgery has been performed worldwide. Due to logistical constraints its first steps occurred in Lubumbashi only in 2008. The aim of this presentation was to report authors' ten-month experience of laparoscopic surgery at Lubumbashi Don Bosco Missionary Hospital (LDBMH): problems encountered and preliminary results. The study was a transsectional descriptive work with a convenient sampling. It only took in account patients with abdominal surgical condition who consented to undergo laparoscopic surgery and when logistical constraints of the procedure were found. Independent variables were patients' demographic parameters, staff, equipments and consumable. Dependent parameters included surgical abdominal diseases, intra-operative circumstances and postoperative short term mortality and morbidity. Between 1st April 2009 and 28th February 2010, 75 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery at the LDBMH making 1.5% of all abdominal surgical activities performed at this institution. The most performed procedure was appendicectomy for acute appendicitis (64%) followed by exploratory laparoscopy for various abdominal chronic pain (9.3%), adhesiolysis for repeated periods of subacute intestinal obstruction in previously laparotomised patients (9.3%), laparoscopic cholecystectomy for post acute cholecystitis on gall stone (5.3%) and partial colectomy for symptomatic redundant sigmoid colon (2.7%). There were 4% of conversion to laparotomy. Laparoscopic surgery consumed more time than laparotomy, mostly when dealing with appendicitis. However, postoperatively, patients did quite well. There was no death in this series. Nursing care was minimal with early discharge. These results are encouraging to pursue laparoscopic surgery with DRC Government and NGO's supports

fPoxDB : fungal peroxidase database for comparative genomics

Peer reviewe

Liver Resection and Ablation for Squamous Cell Carcinoma Liver Metastases

Background Limited evidence exists to guide the management of patients with liver metastases from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort study was to describe patterns of disease recurrence after liver resection/ablation for SCC liver metastases and factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Method Members of the European–African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association were invited to include all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection/ablation for SCC liver metastases between 2002 and 2019. Patient, tumour and perioperative characteristics were analysed with regard to RFS and OS. Results Among the 102 patients included from 24 European centres, 56 patients had anal cancer, and 46 patients had SCC from other origin. RFS in patients with anal cancer and non-anal cancer was 16 and 9 months, respectively (P = 0.134). A positive resection margin significantly influenced RFS for both anal cancer and non-anal cancer liver metastases (hazard ratio 6.82, 95 per cent c.i. 2.40 to 19.35, for the entire cohort). Median survival duration and 5-year OS rate among patients with anal cancer and non-anal cancer were 50 months and 45 per cent and 21 months and 25 per cent, respectively. For the entire cohort, only non-radical resection was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 3.21, 95 per cent c.i. 1.24 to 8.30). Conclusion Liver resection/ablation of liver metastases from SCC can result in long-term survival. Survival was superior in treated patients with liver metastases from anal versus non-anal cancer. A negative resection margin is paramount for acceptable outcome

Long-term outcome of liver transplantation for unresectable liver metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms: a Belgian retrospective multi-centre study

peer reviewedBackground: Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative treatment for unresectable liver metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN-Liver-Mets). While recurrence is frequent after LT, there is limited data available in the literature on the outcome of recurrent patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent LT by NEN-Mets at the six LT centres in Belgium from 1986 to 2020. Patient and tumour characteristics, indication for transplantation, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and tumour recurrence and outcomes were analysed. Results: Forty patients underwent a LT for NEN-Liver-Mets in Belgium. Twenty-nine patients were male (74.2%) with a mean age of 41.9 and 47.1 years at the time of NEN diagnosis and LT, respectively. WHO classification was available for 32 patients and changed over time (see table below). OS post-LT at 1-, 5-, and 10-years are: 84,3%, 65,0% and 54,6% respectively, while the overall DFS are: 76.3%, 44.5% and 38.2% in the same intervals. Patients transplanted after 2010 showed better OS at 5-and 10-years (74.8% and 74.8%) when compared with patients transplanted before (60,0% and 49.5%). Twenty patients (50%) presented a NEN recurrence, of this, 14 (70%) were transplanted before 2010 and only 6 (30%) were transplanted afterwards (p=0.03). The median time for recurrence diagnosis was 12.3 months (range: 5.1 to 69.2). The most frequent recurrence treatments were surgical resection, somatostatin analogs, chemotherapy, and sunitinib therapy (8, 6, 6, and 4 patients, respectively). Survival rates were 89.5% and 56.1% at 1- and 5-years after recurrence diagnosis.Conclusions: Patients transplanted for unresectable NEN-Liver metastases had good long-term survival. Although the total recurrence rate is high, it decreased dramatically after 2010, probably due to better patient selection. Furthermore, recurrence treatment should be recommended as it may prolong patient survival

Liver resection and ablation for squamous cell carcinoma liver metastases.

Funder: Region StockholmFunder: Region Stockholm (clinical postdoctoral appointment)BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists to guide the management of patients with liver metastases from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort study was to describe patterns of disease recurrence after liver resection/ablation for SCC liver metastases and factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). METHOD: Members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association were invited to include all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection/ablation for SCC liver metastases between 2002 and 2019. Patient, tumour and perioperative characteristics were analysed with regard to RFS and OS. RESULTS: Among the 102 patients included from 24 European centres, 56 patients had anal cancer, and 46 patients had SCC from other origin. RFS in patients with anal cancer and non-anal cancer was 16 and 9 months, respectively (P = 0.134). A positive resection margin significantly influenced RFS for both anal cancer and non-anal cancer liver metastases (hazard ratio 6.82, 95 per cent c.i. 2.40 to 19.35, for the entire cohort). Median survival duration and 5-year OS rate among patients with anal cancer and non-anal cancer were 50 months and 45 per cent and 21 months and 25 per cent, respectively. For the entire cohort, only non-radical resection was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 3.21, 95 per cent c.i. 1.24 to 8.30). CONCLUSION: Liver resection/ablation of liver metastases from SCC can result in long-term survival. Survival was superior in treated patients with liver metastases from anal versus non-anal cancer. A negative resection margin is paramount for acceptable outcome

Azithromycin for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData sharing: Data can be shared with qualifying researchers who submit a proposal with a valuable research question as assessed by a committee formed from the Trial Management Group, including senior statistical and clinical representation. A contract should be signed. Requests should be directed to [email protected] Azithromycin, an antibiotic with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used to treat COVID-19, but evidence from community randomised trials is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin to treat suspected COVID-19 among people in the community who had an increased risk of complications. Methods In this UK-based, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course (PRINCIPLE), we randomly assigned people aged 65 years and older, or 50 years and older with at least one comorbidity, who had been unwell for 14 days or less with suspected COVID-19, to usual care plus azithromycin 500 mg daily for three days, usual care plus other interventions, or usual care alone. The trial had two coprimary endpoints measured within 28 days from randomisation: time to first self-reported recovery, analysed using a Bayesian piecewise exponential, and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Eligible participants with outcome data were included in the primary analysis, and those who received the allocated treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN86534580. Findings The first participant was recruited to PRINCIPLE on April 2, 2020. The azithromycin group enrolled participants between May 22 and Nov 30, 2020, by which time 2265 participants had been randomly assigned, 540 to azithromycin plus usual care, 875 to usual care alone, and 850 to other interventions. 2120 (94%) of 2265 participants provided follow-up data and were included in the Bayesian primary analysis, 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group, 823 in the usual care alone group, and 797 in other intervention groups. 402 (80%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 631 (77%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group reported feeling recovered within 28 days. We found little evidence of a meaningful benefit in the azithromycin plus usual care group in time to first reported recovery versus usual care alone (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0·95 to 1·23), equating to an estimated benefit in median time to first recovery of 0·94 days (95% BCI −0·56 to 2·43). The probability that there was a clinically meaningful benefit of at least 1·5 days in time to recovery was 0·23. 16 (3%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 28 (3%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group were hospitalised (absolute benefit in percentage 0·3%, 95% BCI −1·7 to 2·2). There were no deaths in either study group. Safety outcomes were similar in both groups. Two (1%) of 455 participants in the azothromycin plus usual care group and four (1%) of 668 participants in the usual care alone group reported admission to hospital during the trial, not related to COVID-19. Interpretation Our findings do not justify the routine use of azithromycin for reducing time to recovery or risk of hospitalisation for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community. These findings have important antibiotic stewardship implications during this pandemic, as inappropriate use of antibiotics leads to increased antimicrobial resistance, and there is evidence that azithromycin use increased during the pandemic in the UK.UK Research and InnovationUK Department of Health and Social Car

Preoperative risk score for prediction of long-term outcomes after hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Report of a collaborative, international-based, external validation study.

peer reviewe

Controversies in the Surgical Management of Sigmoid Diverticulitis

The timing and appropriateness of surgical treatment of sigmoid diverticular disease remain a topic of controversy. We have reviewed the current literature on this topic, focusing on issues related to the indications and types of surgery. Current evidence would suggest that elective surgery for diverticulitis can be avoided in patients with uncomplicated disease, regardless of the number of recurrent episodes. Furthermore, the need for elective surgey should not be influenced by the age of the patient. Operation should be undertaken in patients with severe attacks, as determined by their clinical and radiological evaluation

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData sharing; Data can be shared with qualifying researchers who submit a proposal with a valuable research question as assessed by a committee formed from the trial management group, including senior statistical and clinical representation. A contract should be signed.Background A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. Methods PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. Findings The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI –0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). Interpretation Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Wellcome Trus