The value of “diaphragmatic relaxing incision” for the durability of the crural repair in patients with paraesophageal hernia: a double blind randomized clinical trial

BackgroundSurgical repair of paraesophageal hernias (PEHs) is burdened with high recurrence rates, and hitherto various techniques explored to enforce the traditional crural repair have not been successful. The hiatal reconstruction in PEH is exposed to significant tension, which may be minimized by adding a diaphragmatic relaxing incision to enhance the durability of the crural repair.Patients and methodsAll individuals undergoing elective laparoscopic repair of a large PEH, irrespective of age, were considered eligible. PEHs were classified into types II–IV. The preoperative work-up program included multidetector computed tomography and symptom assessment questionnaires, which will be repeated during the postoperative follow-up. Patients were randomly divided into a control group with crural repair alone and an intervention group with the addition of a left-sided diaphragmatic relaxing incision at the edge of the upper pole of the spleen. The diaphragmatic defect was then covered by a synthetic mesh.ResultsThe primary endpoint of this trial was the rate of anatomical PEH recurrence at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease, dysphagia, odynophagia, gas bloat, regurgitation, chest pain, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, postprandial pain, cardiovascular and pulmonary symptoms, and patient satisfaction in the immediate postoperative course (3 months) and at 1 year. Postoperative complications, morbidity, and disease burden were recorded for each patient. This was a double-blind study, meaning that the operation report was filed in a locked archive to keep the patient, staff, and clinical assessors blinded to the study group allocation. Blinding must not be broken during the follow-up unless required by any emergencies in the clinical management of the patient. Likewise, the patients must not be informed about the details of the operation.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identification number NCT04179578

Preoperative biliary drainage by plastic or self-expandable metal stents in patients with periampullary tumors: results of a randomized clinical study

Background and study aims Preoperative biliary drainage in patients with periampullary tumors and jaundice has been popularized to improve the quality of life and minimize the risks associated with subsequent radical surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible superiority of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) over plastic stents, by comparing the amount of bacteria in intraoperatively collected bile and using this variable as a proxy for the efficacy of the respective biliary drainage modalities. Patients and methods In this randomized clinical trial, 92 patients with obstructive jaundice were enrolled; 45 were allocated to the plastic stent group and 47 to the SEMS group. The primary outcome was the extent and magnitude of biliary bacterial growth at the time of surgical exploration. Secondary outcomes were: macroscopic grading of inflammation of the stented bile ducts, occurrence of adverse events after stenting, stent dysfunction, recognized surgical complexities, and incidence of postoperative complications. Results The patients were well matched regarding clinical and disease-specific characteristics. At surgery, there were no group differences in the bacterial amount and composition of the bile cultures or the perceived difficulty of surgical dissection. During the preoperative biliary drainage period, more instances of stent dysfunction requiring stent replacement were recorded in the plastic stent group (19 % vs. 0 %; P = 0.03). Postoperative complications in patients who underwent curative surgery were more common in patients with plastic stents (72 % vs. 52 %), among which clinically significant leakage from the pancreatic anastomoses seemed to predominate (12 % vs. 3.7 %); however, none of these differences in postoperative adverse events reached statistical significance. Conclusion This randomized clinical study was unable to demonstrate any superiority of SEMS in the efficacy of preoperative bile drainage, as assessed by the amount of bacteria in the intraoperatively collected bile. However, some data in favor of SEMS were observed among the clinical secondary outcomes variables (preoperative stent exchange rates) without increases in local inflammatory reactions