Postoperative recovery in peroral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment following laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a substudy of a cluster randomized cluster crossover non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of abdominal pain requiring surgery, usually managed with laparoscopic appendectomy. In Denmark, the standard postoperative treatment for complicated cases involves intravenous antibiotics. This study compares peroral versus intravenous antibiotics in the context of fast-track surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Our objective is to evaluate the impact of peroral versus intravenous antibiotics on patient-reported outcomes following laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. METHODS: This was a sub-study within a broader Danish cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial conducted at Zealand University Hospital, focusing on adult patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Participants were randomized into two groups: one receiving a three-day course of peroral antibiotics and the other intravenous antibiotics after surgery. Recovery quality was assessed on the third postoperative day using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. RESULTS: The study included 54 patients, 23 in the peroral and 31 in the intravenous groups. The peroral group reported significantly better recovery outcomes, with higher QoR-15 scores (mean difference of 12 points, p < 0.001). They also experienced shorter hospital stays, averaging 47 h less than the intravenous group (p < 0.001). No significant differences between the groups were observed in readmissions or severe postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Peroral antibiotic administration after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis significantly improves patient recovery and reduces hospital stay compared to intravenous antibiotics. These results advocate a potential shift towards peroral antibiotic use in postoperative care, aligning with ERAS principles. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04803422.

Effect of anterior quadratus lumborum block with ropivacaine on the immune response after laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer: a substudy of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery induces a temporal change in the immune system, which might be modified by regional anesthesia. Applying a bilateral preoperative anterior quadratus lumborum block has proven to be a safe and effective technique in pain management after abdominal and retroperitoneal surgery, but the effect on the immune response is not thoroughly investigated. METHODS: This study is a substudy of a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic hemicolectomy due to colon cancer. Twenty-two patients were randomized to undergo either a bilateral anterior quadratus lumborum nerve block with a total of 60 mL ropivacaine 0.375% or placebo with corresponding isotonic saline injections. The main objective of this exploratory substudy was to investigate the systemic immune response in the first postoperative day by examining changes in blood transcript levels (n=750) and stimulated secretion of cytokines (n=17) on ex vivo activation with microbial ligands and anti-CD3/CD28. RESULTS: Using unsupervised data analysis tools, we observed no effect of the bilateral anterior quadratus lumborum nerve block on gene expression in immune cells (permutational multivariate analysis of variance using distance matrices: F=0.52, p=0.96), abundances of major immune cell populations (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: p>0.05), and stimulated cytokine secretion (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that administration of bilateral anterior quadratus lumborum nerve block as a part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in an enhanced recovery after surgery for laparoscopic hemicolectomy in this cohort does not alter the systemic immune response.Trial registration number NCT03570541.

Peroral versus intravenous post-operative antibiotics after surgery for complicated appendicitis: protocol for a cluster-randomised cluster-crossover non-inferiority study.

INTRODUCTION: Complicated appendicitis increases the risk of post-operative intra-abdominal abscess. Treatment of complicated appendicitis is usually a post-operative course of intravenous antibiotics. A study is needed to confirm the results of retrospective studies showing that a post-operative course of oral antibiotics is not inferior to intravenous antibiotics after laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis. METHODS: The Per oral versus Intravenous Postoperative Antibiotics after surgery for complicated appendicitis (PIPA) trial will be a prospective, multicentre, cluster-randomised cluster-crossover non-inferiority study designed to test whether a three-day post-operative course of oral antibiotics is non-inferior to a three-day post-operative course of intravenous antibiotics as standard care after laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis in regards to the risk of post-operative intra-abdominal abscess formation within 30 days. Participating hospitals will either be randomised to a six-month period with an oral antibiotic regime followed by a six-month period with an intravenous antibiotic regime for the post-operative treatment after laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis, or to a six-month period with an intravenous antibiotic regime followed by a six-month period with an oral antibiotic regime for post-operative treatment after laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome will be the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess by post-operative day 30. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and by the National/Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics.

[Patient-reported outcome measures after ventral hernia surgery].

Traditionally, the quality of ventral hernia repair has been measured by hard outcomes such as morbidity and recurrence, but patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become increasingly popular. In this review we suggest, that only a minor subset of PROMs has improved in patients undergoing elective large-sized incisional hernia repair. For umbilical and smaller incisional hernia repairs, no significant evidence for improved PROMs was found. The vast majority of data were of questionable scientific methodology.