Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis:a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial

Background: The appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis is unclear. The increasing global threat of antimicrobial resistance warrants restrictive antibiotic use, which could also reduce side-effects, length of hospital stay, and costs. Methods: In this pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, patients with complex appendicitis (aged ≥8 years) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendicectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre, and treating physicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. The main outcome was the absolute risk difference (95% CI) in the primary endpoint, adjusted for age and severity of appendicitis, with a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. Outcome assessment was based on electronic patient records and a telephone consultation 90 days after appendicectomy. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL5946. Findings: Between April 12, 2017, and June 3, 2021, 13 267 patients were screened and 1066 were randomly assigned, 533 to each group. 31 were excluded from intention-to-treat analysis of the 2-day group and 30 from the 5-day group owing to errors in recruitment or consent. Appendicectomy was done laparoscopically in 955 (95%) of 1005 patients. The telephone follow-up was completed in 664 (66%) of 1005 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 (10%) of 502 patients analysed in the 2-day group and 41 (8%) of 503 patients analysed in the 5-day group (adjusted absolute risk difference 2·0%, 95% CI −1·6 to 5·6). Rates of complications and re-interventions were similar between trial groups. Fewer patients had adverse effects of antibiotics in the 2-day group (45 [9%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (112 [22%] of 503 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·344, 95% CI 0·237 to 0·498). Re-admission to hospital was more frequent in the 2-day group (58 [12%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (29 [6%] of 503 patients; OR 2·135, 1·342 to 3·396). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: 2 days of postoperative intravenous antibiotics for complex appendicitis is non-inferior to 5 days in terms of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days, based on a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. These findings apply to laparoscopic appendicectomy conducted in a well resourced health-care setting. Adopting this strategy will reduce adverse effects of antibiotics and length of hospital stay. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.</p

Two versus five days of antibiotics after appendectomy for complex acute appendicitis (APPIC): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency surgery. In patients with a complex appendicitis, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended after appendectomy. There is no consensus regarding the optimum duration of antibiotics. Guidelines propose 3 to 7 days of treatment, but shorter courses may be as effective in the prevention of infectious complications. At the same time, the global issue of increasing antimicrobial resistance urges for optimization of antibiotic strategies. The aim of this study is to determine whether a short course (48 h) of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to current standard practice of 5 days. Methods: Patients of 8 years and older undergoing appendectomy for acute complex appendicitis - defined as a gangrenous and/or perforated appendicitis or appendicitis in presence of an abscess - are eligible for inclusion. Immunocompromised or pregnant patients are excluded, as well as patients with a contraindication to the study antibiotics. In total, 1066 patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental treatment arm (48 h of postoperative intravenously administered (IV) antibiotics) or the control arm (5 days of postoperative IV antibiotics). After discharge from the hospital, patients participate in a productivity-cost-questionnaire at 4 weeks and a standardized telephone follow-up at 90 days after appendectomy. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of infectious complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and surgical site infection (SSI), and mortality within 90 days after appendectomy. Secondary outcomes include IAA, SSI, restart of antibiotics, length of hospital stay (LOS), reoperation, percutaneous drainage, readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. The non-inferiority margin for the difference in the primary endpoint rate is set at 7.5% (one-sided test at α 0.025). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on whether 48 h of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to a standard course of 5 days of antibiotics. If non-inferiority is established, longer intravenous administration following appendectomy for complex appendicitis can be abandoned, and guidelines need to be adjusted accordingly

A Phrygian Cap

A Phrygian cap is a congenital anomaly of the gallbladder with an incidence of 4%. It can simulate a mass in the liver during hepatobiliary imaging and is sometimes mistaken for pathology. A Phrygian cap, however, has no pathological significance and normally causes no symptoms. A case will be presented where a Phrygian cap was found by coincidence during surgery. The patient was operated for colon cancer with liver metastasis in segment V. He underwent a simultaneous right hemicolectomy and wedge resection of the liver lesion. During perioperative inspection, a gallbladder with a folded fundus was seen. This deformity was, in retrospective, detected on the preoperative MRI scan. The patient underwent cholecystectomy to make the wedge resection easier to perform. Otherwise, cholecystectomy for a Phrygian cap is only indicated in case of symptoms. Radiographic imaging can be helpful in narrowing the differential diagnosis. To our knowledge, there is no recent literature about the Phrygian cap and its imaging aspects. Nowadays, multiphase MRI, or multiphase CT in case of MRI contraindication, are the first choices of hepatobiliary imaging

A patient- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial of axillary reverse mapping (ARM) in patients with early breast cancer

Background: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in breast cancer patients is infamous for its accompanying morbidity. Selective preservation of upper extremity lymphatic drainage and accompanying lymph nodes crossing the axillary basin - currently resected during a standard ALND - has been proposed as a valuable surgical refinement.Methods: Peroperative Axillary Reversed Mapping (ARM) was used for selective preservation of upper extremity lymphatic drainage. A multicentre patient- and assessor-blinded randomized study was performed in clinical node negative, sentinel node positive early breast cancer patients. Patients were randomized to undergo either standard-ALND or ARM-ALND. Primary outcome was the presence of surgery-related lymphedema at six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included patient reported and objective signs and symptoms of lymphedema, pain, paraesthesia, numbness, loss of shoulder mobility, quality of life and axillary recurrence risk.Results: No significant differences were found between both groups using the water displacement method with respect to measured lymphedema. ARM-ALND resulted in less reported complaints of lymphedema at six, 12 and 24 months postoperatively (pConclusions: In contrast to results of volumetric measurement, patient reported outcomes support selective sparing of the upper extremity lymphatic drainage using ARM as valuable surgical refinement in case of ALND in clinically node negative, sentinel node positive early breast cancer. If completion ALND in clinically node negative, sentinel node positive early breast cancer is considered, selective sparing of upper extremity axillary lymphatics by implementing ARM should be carried out in order to reduce morbidity. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO - The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.</p

Restrictive strategy versus usual care for cholecystectomy in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain (SECURE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority trial

Background: International guidelines advise laparoscopic cholecystectomy to treat symptomatic, uncomplicated gallstones. Usual care regarding cholecystectomy is associated with practice variation and persistent post-cholecystectomy pain in 10–41% of patients. We aimed to compare the non-inferiority of a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection with usual care to assess (in)efficient use of cholecystectomy. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study in 24 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. We enrolled patients aged 18–95 years with abdominal pain and ultrasound-proven gallstones or sludge. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual care in which selection for cholecystectomy was left to the discretion of the surgeon, or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy. For the restrictive strategy, cholecystectomy was advised for patients who fulfilled all five pre-specified criteria of the triage instrument: 1) severe pain attacks, 2) pain lasting 15–30 min or longer, 3) pain located in epigastrium or right upper quadrant, 4) pain radiating to the back, and 5) a positive pain response to simple analgesics. Randomisation was done with an online program, implemented into a web-based application using blocks of variable sizes, and stratified for centre (academic versus non-academic and a high vs low number of patients), sex, and body-mass index. Physicians and patients were masked for study-arm allocation until after completion of the triage instrument. The primary, non-inferiority, patient-reported endpoint was the proportion of patients who were pain-free at 12 months' follow-up, analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. A 5% non-inferiority margin was chosen, based on the estimated clinically relevant difference. Safety analyses were also done in the intention-to treat population. This trial is registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4022. Findings: Between Feb 5, 2014, and April 25, 2017, we included 1067 patients for analysis: 537 assigned to usual care and 530 to the restrictive strategy. At 12 months' follow-up 298 patients (56%; 95% CI, 52·0–60·4) were pain-free in the restrictive strategy group, compared with 321 patients (60%, 55·6–63·8) in usual care. Non-inferiority was not shown (difference 3·6%; one-sided 95% lower CI −8·6%; pnon-inferiority=0·316). According to a secondary endpoint analysis, the restrictive strategy resulted in significantly fewer cholecystectomies than usual care (358 [68%] of 529 vs 404 [75%] of 536; p=0·01). There were no between-group differences in trial-related gallstone complications (40 patients [8%] of 529 in usual care vs 38 [7%] of 536 in restrictive strategy; p=0·16) and surgical complications (74 [21%] of 358 vs 88 [22%] of 404, p=0·77), or in non-trial-related serious adverse events (27 [5%] of 529 vs 29 [5%] of 526). Interpretation: Suboptimal pain reduction in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain was noted with both usual care and following a restrictive strategy for selection for cholecystectomy. However, the restrictive strategy was associated with fewer cholecystectomies. The findings should encourage physicians involved in the care of patients with gallstones to rethink cholecystectomy, and to be more careful in advising a surgical approach in patients with gallstones and abdominal symptoms. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and CZ healthcare insurance

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): A Multicenter Patient-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: This trial followed a structured nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), according to the IDEAL framework for surgical innovation, and aimed to compare time to functional recovery after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). BACKGROUND: MIDP is increasingly used and may enhance postoperative recovery as compared with ODP, but randomized studies are lacking. METHODS: A multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial was performed in 14 centers between April 2015 and March 2017. Adult patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas without vascular involvement were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo MIDP or ODP. Patients were blinded for type of surgery using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5689). RESULTS: Time to functional recovery was 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3-6) in 51 patients after MIDP versus 6 days (IQR 5-8) in 57 patients after ODP (P < 0.001). The conversion rate of MIDP was 8%. Operative blood loss was less after MIDP (150 vs 400 mL; P < 0.001), whereas operative time was longer (217 vs 179 minutes; P = 0.005). The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 25% versus 38% (P = 0.21). Delayed gastric emptying grade B/C was seen less often after MIDP (6% vs 20%; P = 0.04). Postoperative pancreatic fistulas grade B/C were seen in 39% after MIDP versus 23% after ODP (P = 0.07), without difference in percutaneous catheter drainage (22% vs 20%; P = 0.77). Quality of life (day 3-30) was better after MIDP as compared with ODP, and overall costs were non-significantly less after MIDP. No 90-day mortality was seen after MIDP versus 2% (n = 1) after ODP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas, MIDP reduces time to functional recovery compared with ODP. Although the overall rate of complications was not reduced, MIDP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying and better quality of life without increasing costs