Low Hartmann’s procedure or intersphincteric proctectomy for distal rectal cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Purpose: Two non-restorative options for low rectal cancer not invading the sphincter are the low Hartmann’s procedure (LH) or intersphincteric proctectomy (IP). The aim of this study was to compare postoperative morbidity with emphasis on pelvic abscesses after LH and IP. Methods: All patients that had LH or IP for low rectal cancer were included in three centres between 2008 and 2014 in this retrospective cohort study. Follow-up was performed for at least 12 months. Results: A total of 52 patients were included: 40 LH and 12 IP. Median follow-up was 29 months (IQR 23). There were no differences between groups in gender, age and ASA classification. Seven patients in the LH group (18%) and four patients in the IP group (33%) developed a complication within 30-day postoperative with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade III or higher (P = 0.253). Four out of 40 patients (10%) in the LH group and two out of 12 patients (17%) in the IP group developed a pelvic abscess (P = 0.612). Reinterventions were performed in 11 (28%) patients in the LH group and five (42%) patients in the IP group (P = 0.478), with a total number of reinterventions of 13 and 20, respectively. Six and 15 interventions were related to pelvic abscesses, respectively. Conclusion: Pelvic abscesses seem to occur in a similar rate after both LH and IP. Previous reports from the literature suggesting that IP might be associated with less infectious pelvic complications compared to LH are not supported by this study, although numbers are small

Insurance Firms in Process of Industrialization

Background: Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure. Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs. Discussion: The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia

Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study)

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function. DISCUSSION: The uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019

Outcomes of elective liver surgery worldwide: a global, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study

Background: The outcomes of liver surgery worldwide remain unknown. The true population-based outcomes are likely different to those vastly reported that reflect the activity of highly specialized academic centers. The aim of this study was to measure the true worldwide practice of liver surgery and associated outcomes by recruiting from centers across the globe. The geographic distribution of liver surgery activity and complexity was also evaluated to further understand variations in outcomes. Methods: LiverGroup.org was an international, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study following the Global Surgery Collaborative Snapshot Research approach with a 3-month prospective, consecutive patient enrollment within January–December 2019. Each patient was followed up for 90 days postoperatively. All patients undergoing liver surgery at their respective centers were eligible for study inclusion. Basic demographics, patient and operation characteristics were collected. Morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien–Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Country-based and hospital-based data were collected, including the Human Development Index (HDI). (NCT03768141). Results: A total of 2159 patients were included from six continents. Surgery was performed for cancer in 1785 (83%) patients. Of all patients, 912 (42%) experienced a postoperative complication of any severity, while the major complication rate was 16% (341/2159). The overall 90-day mortality rate after liver surgery was 3.8% (82/2,159). The overall failure to rescue rate was 11% (82/ 722) ranging from 5 to 35% among the higher and lower HDI groups, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first to our knowledge global surgery study specifically designed and conducted for specialized liver surgery. The authors identified failure to rescue as a significant potentially modifiable factor for mortality after liver surgery, mostly related to lower Human Development Index countries. Members of the LiverGroup.org network could now work together to develop quality improvement collaboratives

Reproductive choices in women with poor ovarian reserve and recurrent miscarriages

Wereldwijd krijgen vrouwen hun eerste kind op steeds latere leeftijd. Het uitstellen van de kinderwens heeft grote gevolgen, omdat de kans op subfertiliteit (verminderde vruchtbaarheid) en miskramen toeneemt. Anna Musters onderzocht het effect van een injectie met een hormoon (gerecombineerd luteïniserend hormoon rLH) op de kwaliteit van embryo’s van vrouwen boven de 35 jaar die IVF ondergaan. Het verschil in het aantal zeer goede embryo’s in de rLH-groep (17 procent) met dat van de controlegroep (11 procent) was niet statistisch significant. Vrouwen die op latere leeftijd zwanger worden - na IVF of na natuurlijke conceptie - hebben een grotere kans op een miskraam. Er is onvoldoende bewijs om bij paren met herhaalde miskramen embryoselectie aan te bevelen, stelt Musters

Perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: a two-centre experience in the era of intensified oncological treatment

Intensified treatment for distal rectal cancer has improved oncological outcome, but at the expense of more perineal wound complications in patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to analyse perineal wound healing after APR with primary perineal wound closure over time. All patients undergoing APR for primary rectal cancer with primary wound closure between 2000 and 2013 were included and analysed in three consecutive time periods. Both early ( <30 days postoperatively) and late perineal wound complications were determined. Independent risk factors of early perineal wound complications were identified using multivariable analysis. A total of 136 patients were identified, of whom 129 patients underwent primary perineal wound closure. The use of neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy increased from 72 to 91%, and the use of an extralevator approach increased from 9 to 19%. The rate of early perineal wound complications increased from 18 to 31% and was independently associated with an extralevator approach [odds ratio (OR) 3.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-8.66] and intra-operative perforation (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.06-10.57). Perineal wound complications had no impact on local recurrence or 3-year overall survival rate. During a median follow-up of 28 months [interquartile range (IQR) 14-56], a persistent presacral sinus was diagnosed in 10%, and a perineal hernia occurred in 8% of the patients. The increased use of an extralevator APR for rectal cancer significantly increased the risk of perineal wound complications over time. Intra-operative perforation was also independently associated with impaired perineal wound healin

Perspectives of couples with high risk of transmitting genetic disorders

Objective: To investigate the preference for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) as an alternative to prenatal diagnosis (PND) in a large group of couples representing a wide array of genetic disorders. We also investigated the couple's familiarity with PGD and presented time trade-off scenarios for PGD versus PND, as PGD treatment is regularly accompanied by waiting lists. Design: Questionnaire study. Setting: Patient organizations representing genetic disorders. Patient(s): A total of 210 couples carrying genetic disorders. Main Outcome Measure(s): Preference for PGD or PND and familiarity with PGD in carrier couples. Result(s): Fifteen organizations representing 38 genetic disorders agreed to participate. Nine hundred eighty-three couples responded. In total 210 couples were in their reproductive years (women 18-40 years) and had a desire to conceive. Ninety couples (42%) had never heard of PGD. After they were informed, 127 couples (60%) wanted to have diagnostic testing (PND or PGD) performed. Ninety-four (74%) of these couples preferred testing with PGD. When no waiting list was used 102 couples (80%) preferred PGD. With a 2-year waiting list for PGD, 58 couples (46%) would opt for PGD. Conclusion(s): Many carrier couples are unaware of the existence of PGD. When informed, most couples prefer PGD more than PND. The preference for PGD decreases with longer waiting lists. (Fertil Steril (R) 2010;94:1239-43. (C) 2010 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial

Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [ <60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Developmen

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis : A multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial

Background Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≤20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≤60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Findings Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Interpretation Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Funding Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development