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

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision:A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis:Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Objective: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial. Background: Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. Methods: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. Results: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. Conclusions: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.</p

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis:Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

Objective: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial. Background: Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. Methods: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. Results: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. Conclusions: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.</p

Ferric carboxymaltose infusion versus oral iron supplementation for preoperative iron deficiency anaemia in patients with colorectal cancer (FIT):a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background: A third of patients with colorectal cancer who are eligible for surgery in high-income countries have concomitant anaemia associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy of preoperative intravenous and oral iron supplementation in patients with colorectal cancer and iron deficiency anaemia. Methods: In the FIT multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, adult patients (aged 18 years or older) with M0 stage colorectal cancer scheduled for elective curative resection and iron deficiency anaemia (defined as haemoglobin level of less than 7·5 mmol/L (12 g/dL) for women and less than 8 mmol/L (13 g/dL) for men, and a transferrin saturation of less than 20%) were randomly assigned to either 1–2 g of ferric carboxymaltose intravenously or three tablets of 200 mg of oral ferrous fumarate daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with normalised haemoglobin levels before surgery (≥12 g/dL for women and ≥13 g/dL for men). An intention-to-treat analysis was done for the primary analysis. Safety was analysed in all patients who received treatment. The trial was registered at ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02243735, and has completed recruitment. Findings: Between Oct 31, 2014, and Feb 23, 2021, 202 patients were included and assigned to intravenous (n=96) or oral (n=106) iron treatment. Treatment began a median of 14 days (IQR 11–22) before surgery for intravenous iron and 19 days (IQR 13–27) for oral iron. Normalisation of haemoglobin at day of admission was reached in 14 (17%) of 84 patients treated intravenously and 15 (16%) of 97 patients treated orally (relative risk [RR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·55–2·10]; p=0·83), but the proportion of patients with normalised haemoglobin significantly increased for the intravenous treatment group at later timepoints (49 [60%] of 82 vs 18 [21%] of 88 at 30 days; RR 2·92 [95% CI 1·87–4·58]; p&lt;0·0001). The most prevalent treatment-related adverse event was discoloured faeces (grade 1) after oral iron treatment (14 [13%] of 105), and no treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths were observed in either group. No differences in other safety outcomes were seen, and the most common serious adverse events were anastomotic leakage (11 [5%] of 202), aspiration pneumonia (5 [2%] of 202), and intra-abdominal abscess (5 [2%] 202). Interpretation: Normalisation of haemoglobin before surgery was infrequent with both treatment regimens, but significantly improved at all other timepoints following intravenous iron treatment. Restoration of iron stores was feasible only with intravenous iron. In selected patients, surgery might be delayed to augment the effect of intravenous iron on haemoglobin normalisation. Funding: Vifor Pharma.</p

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer

Background: Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5-20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients. Methods/Study design: In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients. Discussion: The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery. Trial registration:NCT02371304, registration date: February 2015

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection versus infliximab treatment of distal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomized multicenter trial (LIR!C-trial)

Contains fulltext : 69534.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: With the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohn's disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction.The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohn's disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohn's disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007. DISCUSSION: The LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR1150

Perioperative strategy in colonic surgery; LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care (LAFA trial)

BACKGROUND: Recent developments in large bowel surgery are the introduction of laparoscopic surgery and the implementation of multimodal fast track recovery programs. Both focus on a faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. The randomized controlled multicenter LAFA-trial (LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care) was conceived to determine whether laparoscopic surgery, fast track perioperative care or a combination of both is to be preferred over open surgery with standard care in patients having segmental colectomy for malignant disease. METHODS/DESIGN: The LAFA-trial is a double blinded, multicenter trial with a 2 × 2 balanced factorial design. Patients eligible for segmental colectomy for malignant colorectal disease i.e. right and left colectomy and anterior resection will be randomized to either open or laparoscopic colectomy, and to either standard care or the fast track program. This factorial design produces four treatment groups; open colectomy with standard care (a), open colectomy with fast track program (b), laparoscopic colectomy with standard care (c), and laparoscopic surgery with fast track program (d). Primary outcome parameter is postoperative hospital length of stay including readmission within 30 days. Secondary outcome parameters are quality of life two and four weeks after surgery, overall hospital costs, morbidity, patient satisfaction and readmission rate. Based on a mean postoperative hospital stay of 9 +/- 2.5 days a group size of 400 patients (100 each arm) can reliably detect a minimum difference of 1 day between the four arms (alfa = 0.95, beta = 0.8). With 100 patients in each arm a difference of 10% in subscales of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire and social functioning can be detected. DISCUSSION: The LAFA-trial is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence on the merits of fast track perioperative care and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients having segmental colectomy for malignant disease

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