Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study) : a randomized controlled trial

Funding The study received a grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; www.zonmw.nl). ZonMw has no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: what determines the risk of unfavorable outcomes? An international multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes. METHODS: To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections

Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011)

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

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe:a registry-based retrospective study A critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P &lt;0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P &lt;0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.</p

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe:a registry-based retrospective study A critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P &lt;0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P &lt;0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.</p

Pathological Margin Clearance and Survival After Pancreaticoduodenectomy in a US and European Pancreatic Center

Background: The optimal definition of a margin-negative resection and its exact prognostic significance on survival in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains unknown. This study was designed to assess the relationship between pathological margin clearance, margin type, and survival. Methods: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with curative intent at two academic institutions, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Boston, Massachusetts, between 2000 and 2014 were retrospectively evaluated. Overall survival, recurrence rates, and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, according to pathological margin clearance and type of margin involved. Results: Of 531 patients identified, the median PFS was 12.9, 15.4, and 24.1 months, and the median overall survival was 17.4, 22.9, and 27.7 months for margin clearances of 0, < 1, and ≥1 mm, respectively (all log-rank p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, patients with a margin clearance of ≥1 mm demonstrated a survival advantage relative to those with 0 mm clearance [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, p < 0.01], whereas survival was comparable for patients with a margin clearance of < 1 mm versus 0 mm (HR: 0.93, p = 0.60). Patients with involvement (0 or < 1 mm margin clearance) of the SMV/PV margin demonstrated prolonged median overall survival (25.7 months) relative to those with SMA involvement (17.5 months). Conclusions: In patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a margin clearance of ≥1 mm correlates with improved survival relative to < 1 mm clearance and may be a more accurate predictor of a complete margin-negative resection in pancreatic cancer. The type of margin involved also appears to impact survival. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-018-6467-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Pancreatitis, very early compared with normal start of enteral feeding (PYTHON trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial

Contains fulltext : 97199.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: In predicted severe acute pancreatitis, infections have a negative effect on clinical outcome. A start of enteral nutrition (EN) within 24 hours of onset may reduce the number of infections as compared to the current practice of starting an oral diet and EN if necessary at 3-4 days after admission. METHODS/DESIGN: The PYTHON trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. Patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Imrie-score >/= 3 or APACHE-II score >/= 8 or CRP > 150 mg/L) will be randomised to EN within 24 hours or an oral diet and EN if necessary, after 72 hours after hospital admission.During a 3-year period, 208 patients will be enrolled from 20 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality or infections (bacteraemia, infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, pneumonia) during hospital stay or within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include other major morbidity (e.g. new onset organ failure, need for intervention), intolerance of enteral feeding and total costs from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: The PYTHON trial is designed to show that a very early (< 24 h) start of EN reduces the combined endpoint of mortality or infections as compared to the current practice of an oral diet and EN if necessary at around 72 hours after admission for predicted severe acute pancreatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN18170985