Nicotine chewing gum for the prevention of postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery: a multicenter, double-blind, randomised, controlled pilot study

Purpose: When postoperative ileus is not resolved after 5 days or recurs after resolution, prolonged POI (PPOI) is diagnosed. PPOI increases discomfort, morbidity and hospitalisation length, and is mainly caused by an inflammatory response following intestinal manipulation. This response can be weakened by targeting the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, with nicotine as essential regulator. Chewing gum, already known to stimulate gastrointestinal motility itself, combined with nicotine is hypothesised to improve gastrointestinal recovery and prevent PPOI. This pilot study is the first to assess efficacy and safety of nicotine gum in colorectal surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing elective oncological colorectal surgery were enrolled in this double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial and randomly assigned to a treatment protocol with normal or nicotine gum (2 mg). Patient reported outcomes (PROMS), clinical characteristics and blood samples were collected. Primary endpoint was defined as time to first passage of faeces and toleration of solid food for at least 24 h. Results: In total, 40 patients were enrolled (20 vs. 20). In both groups, six patients developed PPOI. Time to primary endpoint (4.50 [3.00–7.25] vs. 3.50 days [3.00–4.25], p = 0.398) and length of stay (5.50 [4.00–8.50] vs. 4.50 days [4.00–6.00], p = 0.738) did not differ significantly between normal and nicotine gum. There were no differences in PROMS, inflammatory parameters and postoperative complications. Conclusions: We proved nicotine gum to be safe but ineffective in improving gastrointestinal recovery and prevention of PPOI after colorectal surgery. Other dosages and administration routes of nicotine should be tested in future research

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis: Three-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

Background: The aim of the present study is to present the three years follow-up a randomised controlled trial that compared Hartmann's Procedure (HP) with sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis (with or without defunctioning ileostomy) (PA) in a randomised design to determine the optimal treatment strategy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis. Methods: Data were prospectively gathered for the first 12 months after randomization and retrospectively collected up to 36 months. The primary long-term endpoint was stoma free rate 36 months after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes were patients with a stoma at 36 months, percentage of stoma reversals, related reinterventions, parastomal/incisional hernia rates, total in hospital days including all readmissions regardless their relation to the intervention, overall morbidity and mortality. Results: Three years follow-up was completed in 119 of the originally 130 included patients, with 57 (48%) in the PA-group and 62 (52%) patients in the HP-group. 36 months stoma free rate was significantly better for patients undergoing PA compared with HP (PA 92% vs HP 81%, hazard ratio 2.326 [95% CI 1.538–3.517]; log-rank p < 0·0001). Stoma reversal rates did not significantly differ (PA 31/40(78%) versus HP 45/61(74%), p = 0.814). Overall cumulative morbidity (PA 21/57(36%) versus HP 30/62(48%), p = 0.266) and mortality (PA 6/57(11%) versus HP 7/62 (11%), p = 1.000) did not differ between groups. However, more parastomal hernias occurred in the HP-group (HP 10/62(16%) vs PA 1/57(2%), p = 0.009) and the mean total in hospital days after three years follow-up was significantly lower in the PA-group compared to the HP-group (PA 14 days (IQR 9.5–22.5) versus HP 17 days (IQR 12.5–27.5)), p = 0.025). Conclusion: Long-term results showed that in haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure as treatment for perforated diverticulitis with respect to long-term stoma free rate, overall hospitalization and parastomal hernias

Outcomes After Elective Colorectal Surgery by 2 Surgeons Versus 1 Surgeon in a Low-Volume Hospital

Background. Improved patient outcomes after colorectal surgery in high-volume hospitals are leading to centralization of colorectal surgery. However, it is desirable to strive for optimal quality of colorectal surgery in low-volume hospitals. This study aimed to assess the effect of the number of surgeons involved in the surgical procedure on patient outcomes in a low-volume hospital. Methods. All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery with construction of a primary anastomosis between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, were included in this retrospective cohort. The propensity score was used to adjust for confounding. Results. A total of 429 patients were included. One hundred forty-three patients (33.3%) were operated by 1 surgeon and 286 patients (66.7%) were operated by 2 surgeons. Patients operated by 2 surgeons were younger, more often male, and had a higher body mass index. A multivariate analysis with propensity scores revealed that surgery with 2 surgeons was associated with fewer reoperations (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2-0.9, P = .038). Colorectal anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.2-1.3, P = .204) and mortality (OR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.2-3.7, P = .807) were not associated with the number of surgeons involved in the surgical procedure. Conclusion. The present study shows that elective colorectal surgery in a low-volume hospital performed by 2 surgeons resulted in fewer reoperations. This might positively influence patient outcomes and might be related to increased surgical quality as compared with procedures performed by only 1 surgeon

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial

Background: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. Methods: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Findings: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7–100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1–83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86–4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). Interpretation: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development