21 research outputs found

    Influence of Conversion and Anastomotic Leakage on Survival in Rectal Cancer Surgery; Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

    Get PDF

    Small bowel obstruction, incisional hernia and survival after laparoscopic and open colonic resection (LAFA study)

    No full text
    Short-term advantages to laparoscopic surgery are well described. This study compared medium- to long-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open colonic resection for cancer. The case notes of patients included in the LAFA study (perioperative strategy in colonic surgery; LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care) were reviewed 2-5 years after randomization for incisional hernia, adhesional small bowel obstruction (SBO), overall survival, cancer recurrence and quality of life (QoL). The laparoscopic and open groups were compared irrespective of fast-track or standard perioperative care. Data on incisional hernias, SBO, survival and recurrence were available for 399 of 400 patients: 208 laparoscopic and 191 open resections. These outcomes were corrected for duration of follow-up. Median follow-up was 3·4 (i.q.r. 2·6-4·4) years. Multivariable regression analysis showed that open resection was a risk factor for incisional hernia (odds ratio (OR) 2·44, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·12 to 5·26; P = 0·022) and SBO (OR 3·70, 1·07 to 12·50; P = 0·039). There were no differences in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·10, 95 per cent c.i. 0·67 to 1·80; P = 0·730) or in cumulative incidence of recurrence (P = 0·514) between the laparoscopic and open groups. There were no measured differences in QoL in 281 respondents (P > 0·350 for all scales). Laparoscopic colonic surgery led to fewer incisional hernia and adhesional SBO events. NTR222 (http://www.trialregister.nl

    Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy may improve postoperative recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy. However, there are concerns that the extensive learning curve of this complex procedure could increase the risk of complications. We aimed to assess whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy could reduce time to functional recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This multicentre, patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial was performed in four centres in the Netherlands that each do 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually; surgeons had to have completed a dedicated training programme for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and have done 20 or more laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies before trial participation. Patients with a benign, premalignant, or malignant indication for pancreatoduodenectomy, without signs of vascular involvement, were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy using a central web-based system. Randomisation was stratified for annual case volume and preoperative estimated risk of pancreatic fistula. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The main objective of the phase 2 part of the trial was to assess the safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (complications and mortality), and the primary outcome of phase 3 was time to functional recovery in days, defined as all of the following: adequate pain control with only oral analgesia; independent mobility; ability to maintain more than 50% of the daily required caloric intake; no need for intravenous fluid administration; and no signs of infection (temperature <38.5 degrees C). This trial is registered with Trialregister.nl, number NTR5689. FINDINGS: Between May 13 and Dec 20, 2016, 42 patients were randomised in the phase 2 part of the trial. Two patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. Three (15%) of 20 patients died within 90 days after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, compared with none of 20 patients after open pancreatoduodenectomy. Based on safety data from the phase 2 part of the trial, the data and safety monitoring board and protocol committee agreed to proceed with phase 3. Between Jan 31 and Nov 14, 2017, 63 additional patients were randomised in phase 3 of the trial. Four patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. After randomisation of 105 patients (combining patients from both phase 2 and phase 3), of whom 99 underwent surgery, the trial was prematurely terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of a difference in 90-day complication-related mortality (five [10%] of 50 patients in the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group vs one [2%] of 49 in the open pancreatoduodenectomy group; risk ratio [RR] 4.90 [95% CI 0.59-40.44]; p=0.20). Median time to functional recovery was 10 days (95% CI 5-15) after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus 8 days (95% CI 7-9) after open pancreatoduodenectomy (log-rank p=0.80). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications (25 [50%] of 50 patients after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy vs 19 [39%] of 49 after open pancreatoduodenectomy; RR 1.29 [95% CI 0.82-2.02]; p=0.26) and grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulas (14 [28%] vs 12 [24%]; RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.59-2.22]; p=0.69) were comparable between groups. INTERPRETATION: Although not statistically significant, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with more complication-related deaths than was open pancreatoduodenectomy, and there was no difference between groups in time to functional recovery. These safety concerns were unexpected and worrisome, especially in the setting of trained surgeons working in centres performing 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually. Experience, learning curve, and annual volume might have influenced the outcomes; future research should focus on these issues. FUNDING: Grant for investigator-initiated studies by Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited

    Pathogenicity of human antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein.

    No full text
    ObjectiveAutoantibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) occur in a proportion of patients with inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (CNS). We analyzed their pathogenic activity by affinity-purifying these antibodies (Abs) from patients and transferring them to experimental animals.MethodsPatients with Abs to MOG were identified by cell-based assay. We determined the cross-reactivity to rodent MOG and the recognized MOG epitopes. We produced the correctly folded extracellular domain of MOG and affinity-purified MOG-specific Abs from the blood of patients. These purified Abs were used to stain CNS tissue and transferred in 2 models of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Animals were analyzed histopathologically.ResultsWe identified 17 patients with MOG Abs from our outpatient clinic and selected 2 with a cross-reactivity to rodent MOG; both had recurrent optic neuritis. Affinity-purified Abs recognized MOG on transfected cells and stained myelin in tissue sections. The Abs from the 2 patients recognized different epitopes on MOG, the CC and the FG loop. In both patients, these Abs persisted during our observation period of 2 to 3 years. The anti-MOG Abs from both patients were pathogenic upon intrathecal injection in 2 different rat models. Together with cognate MOG-specific T cells, these Abs enhanced T-cell infiltration; together with myelin basic protein-specific T cells, they induced demyelination associated with deposition of C9neo, resembling a multiple sclerosis type II pathology.InterpretationMOG-specific Abs affinity purified from patients with inflammatory demyelinating disease induce pathological changes in vivo upon cotransfer with myelin-reactive T cells, suggesting that these Abs are similarly pathogenic in patients. Ann Neurol 2018;84:315-32

    Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Currently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn's disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013)
    corecore