Sexual and urinary functioning after rectal surgery: a prospective comparative study with a median follow-up of 8.5 years

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare rectal resection (RR) with colonic resection on sexual, urinary and bowel function and quality of life in both short-term and long-term. Eighty-three patients who underwent RR were compared to 53 patients who underwent a colonic resection leaving the rectum in situ (RIS). A questionnaire assessing sexual, urinary and bowel functioning with a quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) was sent to all participants preoperatively, 3 and 12 months postoperatively and approximately 8 years after the onset of the study. Short-term dysfunction included diminished sexual activity in female RR patients at 3 months and significantly more erectile dysfunction in RR patients 1 year postoperatively. Long-term dysfunction included more frequent and more severe erectile dysfunction in RR patients compared to RIS patients. These short-term and long-term outcomes did not influence overall quality of life. The incidence of urinary dysfunction was comparable between both groups. Bowel functioning was significantly better in the RIS group compared to the RR group 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patients who underwent RR experienced up to 1 year postoperatively more sexual and bowel function problems than RIS patients. However, short-term and long-term dysfunction did not influence overall quality of life. Erectile dysfunction in male RR patients persisted in time, whereas other aspects of sexual, urinary and bowel function after RR and colonic resection are similar after a median follow-up of 8.5 year

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.MethodsAn online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.ResultsThe response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).DiscussionThe step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Incidence and Treatment of Symptomatic Diaphragmatic Hernia After Esophagectomy for Cancer

Background: Diaphragmatic hernias after esophagectomy are mostly asymptomatic. However, they can also manifest with severe complications and be associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aims of this study were to assess the incidence, predictive factors, and preferred treatment of symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias and to evaluate the role of prophylactic cruroplasty in patients after esophagectomy for carcinomas of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Methods: A prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy between January 2005 and December 2015. Results: A symptomatic diaphragmatic hernia was diagnosed in 21 (2.5%) of 851 included patients; 15 (4.3%) after 345 minimally invasive esophagectomies and 6 (1.2%) after 506 open esophagectomies (p = 0.004). Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedures had the highest incidence (9.4%; p = 0.002) as compared with all other procedures. Prophylactic cruroplasty did not decrease the incidence of symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias (2.1% vs 2.7%; p = 0.608). Surgical treatment consisted of cruroplasty, with reinforcement of Prolene pledgets (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) in 11 patients. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >IIIb) occurred in 3 patients, all after open repair (n = 9). Recurrences were found in 4 patients (19.0%), three after laparoscopic repair and one after open repair. Conclusions: The incidence of symptomatic diaphragmatic hernia after esophagectomy was 2.5%, with the highest incidence after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (9.4%) as compared with other procedures. Although prophylactic cruroplasty is now the standard of care in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, a significant lower hernia rate was not found in this study

Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711]

Contains fulltext : 126176.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatiti

Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE) : Design and rationale of a nationwide prospective evaluation and follow-up

Background Chronic pancreatitis is a complex disease with many unanswered questions regarding the natural history and therapy. Prospective longitudinal studies with long-term follow-up are warranted. Methods The Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE) is a nationwide registry aimed at prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with chronic pancreatitis. All patients with (suspected) chronic or recurrent pancreatitis are eligible for CARE. Patients are followed-up by yearly questionnaires and review of medical records. Study outcomes are pain, disease complications, quality of life, and pancreatic function. The target sample size was set at 500 for the first year and 1000 patients within 3 years. Results A total of 1218 patients were included from February 2010 until June 2013 by 76 participating surgeons and gastroenterologist from 33 hospitals. Participation rate was 90% of eligible patients. Eight academic centers included 761 (62%) patients, while 25 community hospitals included 457 (38%). Patient centered outcomes were assessed by yearly questionnaires, which had a response rate of 85 and 82% for year 1 and 2, respectively. The median age of patients was 58 years, 814 (67%) were male, and 38% had symptoms for less than 5 years. Discussion The CARE registry has successfully recruited over 1200 patients with chronic and recurrent pancreatitis in about 3 years. The defined inclusion criteria ensure patients are included at an early disease stage. Participation and compliance rates are high. CARE offers a unique opportunity with sufficient power to investigate many clinical questions regarding natural course, complications, and efficacy and timing of treatment strategies

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

Background: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. Methods: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. Results: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). Discussion: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis