Randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) with wire-guided localization in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer

Wire-guided localization (WGL) is the standard of care in the surgical treatment of nonpalpable breast tumors. In this study, we compare the use of a new magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) technique to WGL in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients. Open-label, single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing MaMaLoc (intervention) to WGL (control) in women with early-stage breast cancer. Primary outcome was surgical usability measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100 score). Secondary outcomes were patient reported, clinical, and pathological outcomes such as retrieval rate, operative time, resected specimen weight, margin status, and reoperation rate. Thirty-two patients were analyzed in the MaMaLoc group and 35 in the WGL group. Patient and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. No in situ complications occurred. Retrieval rate was 100% in both groups. Surgical usability was higher for MaMaLoc: 70.2 ± 8.9 vs. 58.1 ± 9.1, p < 0.001. Patients reported higher overall satisfaction with MaMaLoc (median score 5/5) versus WGL (score 4/5), p < 0.001. The use of magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) for early-stage breast cancer is effective and has higher surgical usability than standard WGL

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery.Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons.</p

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.</p

A multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of small stitches on the incidence of incisional hernia in midline incisions

Contains fulltext : 95575.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The median laparotomy is frequently used by abdominal surgeons to gain rapid and wide access to the abdominal cavity with minimal damage to nerves, vascular structures and muscles of the abdominal wall. However, incisional hernia remains the most common complication after median laparotomy, with reported incidences varying between 2-20%. Recent clinical and experimental data showed a continuous suture technique with many small tissue bites in the aponeurosis only, is possibly more effective in the prevention of incisional hernia when compared to the common used large bite technique or mass closure. METHODS/DESIGN: The STITCH trial is a double-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to compare a standardized large bite technique with a standardized small bites technique. The main objective is to compare both suture techniques for incidence of incisional hernia after one year. Secondary outcomes will include postoperative complications, direct costs, indirect costs and quality of life. A total of 576 patients will be randomized between a standardized small bites or large bites technique. At least 10 departments of general surgery and two departments of oncological gynaecology will participate in this trial. Both techniques have a standardized amount of stitches per cm wound length and suture length wound length ratio's are calculated in each patient. Follow up will be at 1 month for wound infection and 1 year for incisional hernia. Ultrasound examinations will be performed at both time points to measure the distance between the rectus muscles (at 3 points) and to objectify presence or absence of incisional hernia. Patients, investigators and radiologists will be blinded during follow up, although the surgeon can not be blinded during the surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: The STITCH trial will provide level 1b evidence to support the preference for either a continuous suture technique with many small tissue bites in the aponeurosis only or for the commonly used large bites technique

Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH) : a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy and is as sociated with high morbidity, decreased quality of life, and high costs. We aimed to compare the large bites suture technique with the small bites technique for fascial closure of midline laparotomy incisions. Methods We did this prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at surgical and gynaecological departments in ten hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older who were scheduled to undergo elective abdominal surgery with midline laparotomy were randomly assigned (1: 1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to receive small tissue bites of 5 mm every 5 mm or large bites of 1 cm every 1 cm. Randomisation was stratified by centre and between surgeons and residents with a minimisation procedure to ensure balanced allocation. Patients and study investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the occurrence of incisional hernia; we postulated a reduced incidence in the small bites group. We analysed patients by intention to treat. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01132209 and with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2052. Findings Between Oct 20, 2009, and March 12, 2012, we randomly assigned 560 patients to the large bites group (n= 284) or the small bites group (n= 276). Follow-up ended on Aug 30, 2013; 545 (97%) patients completed follow-up and were included in the primary outcome analysis. Patients in the small bites group had fascial closures sutured with more stitches than those in the large bites group (mean number of stitches 45 [SD 12] vs 25 [10]; p< 0.0001), a higher ratio of suture length to wound length (5.0 [1.5] vs 4.3 [1.4]; p< 0.0001) and a longer closure time (14 [6] vs 10 [4] min; p< 0.0001). At 1 year follow-up, 57 (21%) of 277 patients in the large bites group and 35 (13%) of 268 patients in the small bites group had incisional hernia (p= 0.0220, covariate adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.31-0.87; p= 0.0131). Rates of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. Interpretation Our findings show that the small bites suture technique is more effective than the traditional large bites technique for prevention of incisional hernia in midline incisions and is not associated with a higher rate of adverse events. The small bites technique should become the standard closure technique for midline incisions

Operation compared with watchful waiting in elderly male inguinal hernia patients: a review and data analysis.

Item does not contain fulltex