Preoperative biliary drainage for periampullary tumors causing obstructive jaundice; DRainage vs. (direct) OPeration (DROP-trial)

BACKGROUND: Surgery in patients with obstructive jaundice caused by a periampullary (pancreas, papilla, distal bile duct) tumor is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications than in non-jaundiced patients. Preoperative biliary drainage was introduced in an attempt to improve the general condition and thus reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality. Early studies showed a reduction in morbidity. However, more recently the focus has shifted towards the negative effects of drainage, such as an increase of infectious complications. Whether biliary drainage should always be performed in jaundiced patients remains controversial. The randomized controlled multicenter DROP-trial (DRainage vs. Operation) was conceived to compare the outcome of a 'preoperative biliary drainage strategy' (standard strategy) with that of an 'early-surgery' strategy, with respect to the incidence of severe complications (primary-outcome measure), hospital stay, number of invasive diagnostic tests, costs, and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor, eligible for exploration after staging with CT scan, and scheduled to undergo a "curative" resection, will be randomized to either "early surgical treatment" (within one week) or "preoperative biliary drainage" (for 4 weeks) and subsequent surgical treatment (standard treatment). Primary outcome measure is the percentage of severe complications up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size calculation is based on the equivalence design for the primary outcome measure. If equivalence is found, the comparison of the secondary outcomes will be essential in selecting the preferred strategy. Based on a 40% complication rate for early surgical treatment and 48% for preoperative drainage, equivalence is taken to be demonstrated if the percentage of severe complications with early surgical treatment is not more than 10% higher compared to standard treatment: preoperative biliary drainage. Accounting for a 10% dropout, 105 patients are needed in each arm resulting in a study population of 210 (alpha = 0.95, beta = 0.8). DISCUSSION: The DROP-trial is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not preoperative biliary drainage is to be performed in patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage in patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis.

Published evidence indicates that surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic drainage for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus endoscopic drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis

Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2666">NTR2666</a></p

Evaluation of Protocol Uniformity Concerning Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in The Netherlands

Background: Iatrogenic bile duct injury remains a current complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One uniform and standardized protocol, based on the "critical view of safety" concept of Strasberg, should red

Management of Solid-pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas: a Comparison with Standard Pancreatic Neoplasms

BACKGROUND: Solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) of the pancreas are increasingly diagnosed, but the exact surgical management in terms of extent of the resection is not well defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients operated on in our hospital between January 1993 and March 2005 formed the study groups. RESULTS: From 659 consecutive resections for pancreatic neoplasms, 12 female patients (1.8%) with a median age of 21 years who underwent resection for (SPN) are compared with the remaining 647 pancreatic resection patients. Jaundice (SPN 0 versus PR 73%, p < 0.001) and weight loss (SPN 0 versus PR 49%, p = 0.001) occurred significantly less often. Neoplasms were distributed equally among the pancreatic head (SPN 5 out of 12 patients versus PR 88%, p < 0.001) and corpus/tail (SPN 6 out of 12 patients versus PR 8%, p < 0.001). The operative time was significantly shorter (SPN 233 min versus PR 280 min, p = 0.012), and there were significantly fewer complications (SPN 1 of 12 patients versus PR 48%, p = 0.007). The mortality was not different (SPN 0 versus PR 1.6%, p = 1.000), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter (SPN 9 days versus PR 15 days, p = 0.012). The median size of the neoplasms was significantly larger (SPN 6.9 cm versus PR 2.5 cm). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly fewer (SPN 1 versus PR 6, p = 0.001), and lymph node metastases occurred significantly less often (SPN 0 versus PR 64%, p < 0.001). The 5-year survival of SPN patients was 100% and is significantly better compared with survival of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (12%, p < 0.001) and ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma (22%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas present differently and the course of the disease is more benign. These patients can be adequately managed by pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy or spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excellent early and long-term result

Percutaneous Preoperative Biliary Drainage for Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: No Association with Survival and No Increase in Seeding Metastases

Background. Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are both used to resolve jaundice before surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). PTBD has been associated with seeding metastases. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and the incidence of initial seeding metastases that potentially influence survival in patients with preoperative PTBD versus EBD. Methods. Between 1991 and 2012, a total of 278 patients underwent preoperative biliary drainage and resection of PHC at 2 institutions in the Netherlands and the United States. Of these, 33 patients were excluded for postoperative mortality. Among the 245 included patients, 88 patients who underwent preoperative PTBD (with or without previous EBD) were compared to 157 patients who underwent EBD only. Survival analysis was done with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression with propensity score adjustment. Results. Unadjusted median OS was comparable between the PTBD group (35 months) and EBD-only group (41 months; P = 0.26). After adjustment for propensity score, OS between the PTBD group and EBD-only group was similar (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95 % confidence interval, 0.74-1.49; P = 0.80). Seeding metastases in the laparotomy scar occurred as initial recurrence in 7 patients, including 3 patients (3.4 %) in the PTBD group and 4 patients (2.7 %) in the EBD-only group (P = 0.71). No patient had an initial recurrence in percutaneous catheter tracts. Conclusions. The present study found no effect of PTBD on survival compared to patients with EBD and no increase in seeding metastases that developed as initial recurrence. These data suggest that PTBD can safely be used in preoperative management of PHC

Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines

Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for acute biliary inflammation/ infection (acute cholangitis and acute cholecystitis), according to severity grade, have not yet been established in the world. Therefore we formulated flowcharts for the management of acute biliary inflammation/ infection in accordance with severity grade. For mild (grade I) acute cholangitis, medical treatment may be sufficient/appropriate. For moderate (grade II) acute cholangitis, early biliary drainage should be performed. For severe (grade III) acute cholangitis, appropriate organ support such as ventilatory/circulatory management is required. After hemodynamic stabilization is achieved, urgent endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage should be performed. For patients with acute cholangitis of any grade of severity, treatment for the underlying etiology, including endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical treatment should be performed after the patient's general condition has improved. For patients with mild (grade I) cholecystitis, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment. For patients with moderate (grade II) acute cholecystitis, early laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy is preferred. In patients with extensive local inflammation, elective cholecystectomy is recommended after initial management with percutaneous gallbladder drainage and/or cholecystostomy. For the patient with severe (grade III) acute cholecystitis, multiorgan support is a critical part of management. Biliary peritonitis due to perforation of the gallbladder is an indication for urgent cholecystectomy and/or drainage. Delayed elective cholecystectomy may be performed after initial treatment with gallbladder drainage and improvement of the patient's general medical condition. © Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2007.published_or_final_versio

Endoscopic and Percutaneous Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients with Suspected Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists over the preferred technique of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) requiring major liver resection. The current study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with resectable HCCA. METHODS: One hundred fifteen consecutive patients were explored for HCCA between 2001 and July 2008 and assigned by initial PBD procedure to either EBD or PTBD. RESULTS: Of these patients, 101 (88%) underwent PBD; 90 patients underwent EBD as primary procedure, and 11 PTBD. The technical success rate of initial drainage was 81% in the EBD versus 100% in the PTBD group (P = 0.20). Stent dislocation was similar in the EBD and PTBD groups (23% vs. 20%, P = 0.70). Infectious complications were significantly more common in the endoscopic group (48% vs. 9%, P < 0.05). Patients in the EBD group underwent more drainage procedures (2.8 vs. 1.4, P < 0.01) and had a significantly longer drainage period until laparotomy (mean 15 weeks vs. 11 weeks in the PTBD group; P < 0.05). In 30 patients, EBD was converted to PTBD due to failure of the endoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative percutaneous drainage could outperform endoscopic stent placement in patients with resectable HCCA, showing fewer infectious complications, using less procedure