Was Germany ever united? Evidence from intra- and international trade 1885–1933

When did Germany become economically integrated? Within the framework of a gravity model, based on a new data set of about 40,000 observations on trade flows within and across the borders of Germany over the period 1885 – 1933, I explore the geography of trade costs across Central Europe. There are three key results. First, the German Empire before 1914 was a poorly integrated economy, both relative to integration across the borders of the German state and in absolute terms. Second, this internal fragmentation resulted from cultural heterogeneity, from administrative borders within Germany, and from geographical barriers that divided Germany along natural trade routes into eastern and western parts. Third, internal integration improved, while external integration worsened after World War I and again with the Great Depression, in part because of border changes along the lines of ethno-linguistic heterogeneity. By the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, Germany was reasonably well integrated

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial

Background: There is substantial uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical treatment for chronic pancreatitis. Short-term outcomes have been found to be better after duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) than after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. Therefore, we designed the multicentre ChroPac trial to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with chronic pancreatitis within 24 months after surgery. Methods: This randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial was done in 18 hospitals across Europe. Patients with chronic pancreatitis who were planned for elective surgical treatment were randomly assigned to DPPHR or partial pancreatoduodenectomy with a central web-based randomisation tool. The primary endpoint was mean quality of life within 24 months after surgery, measured with the physical functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Primary analysis included all patients who underwent one of the assigned procedures; safety analysis included all patients who underwent surgical intervention (categorised into groups as treated). Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38973832. Recruitment was completed on Sept 3, 2013. Findings: Between Sept 10, 2009, and Sept 3, 2013, 250 patients were randomly assigned to DPPHR (n=125) or partial pancreatoduodenectomy (n=125), of whom 226 patients (115 in the DPPHR group and 111 in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group) were analysed. No difference in quality of life was seen between the groups within 24 months after surgery (75·3 [SD 16·4] for partial pancreatoduodenectomy vs 73·0 [16·4] for DPPHR; mean difference −2·3, 95% CI −6·6 to 2·0; p=0·284). The incidence and severity of serious adverse events did not differ between the groups. 70 (64%) of 109 patients in the DPPHR group and 61 (52%) of 117 patients in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group had at least one serious adverse event, with the most common being reoperations (for reasons other than chronic pancreatitis), gastrointestinal problems, and other surgical morbidity. Interpretation: No differences in quality of life after surgery for chronic pancreatitis were seen between the interventions. Results from single-centre trials showing superiority for DPPHR were not confirmed in the multicentre setting

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial

Background There is substantial uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical treatment for chronic pancreatitis. Short-term outcomes have been found to be better after duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) than after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. Therefore, we designed the multicentre ChroPac trial to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with chronic pancreatitis within 24 months after surgery. Methods This randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial was done in 18 hospitals across Europe. Patients with chronic pancreatitis who were planned for elective surgical treatment were randomly assigned to DPPHR or partial pancreatoduodenectomy with a central web-based randomisation tool. The primary endpoint was mean quality of life within 24 months after surgery, measured with the physical functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Primary analysis included all patients who underwent one of the assigned procedures; safety analysis included all patients who underwent surgical intervention (categorised into groups as treated). Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38973832. Recruitment was completed on Sept 3, 2013. Findings Between Sept 10, 2009, and Sept 3, 2013, 250 patients were randomly assigned to DPPHR (n=125) or partial pancreatoduodenectomy (n=125), of whom 226 patients (115 in the DPPHR group and 111 in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group) were analysed. No difference in quality of life was seen between the groups within 24 months after surgery (75.3 [SD 16.4] for partial pancreatoduodenectomy vs 73.0 [16.4] for DPPHR; mean difference -2.3, 95% CI -6.6 to 2.0; p=0.284). The incidence and severity of serious adverse events did not differ between the groups. 70 (64%) of 109 patients in the DPPHR group and 61 (52%) of 117 patients in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group had at least one serious adverse event, with the most common being reoperations (for reasons other than chronic pancreatitis), gastrointestinal problems, and other surgical morbidity. Interpretation No differences in quality of life after surgery for chronic pancreatitis were seen between the interventions. Results from single-centre trials showing superiority for DPPHR were not confirmed in the multicentre setting