Prophylactic Mesh-related Reoperations and Mesh-related Problems During Subsequent Relaparotomies: Long-term Results From the PRIMA Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate all mesh-related problems during reoperations after mesh-reinforcement 15 years after the start of the PRIMA trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during closure of a midline laparotomy has proven to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia, especially in high-risk patients, but long-term mesh-related morbidity is largely unknown. METHODS: Patients receiving a prophylactic onlay or retro-rectus mesh in the PRIMA trial between 2009 and 2012 were included on an as-treated basis from participating centers that made reoperation notes available. Main outcomes were the incidences of complications requiring mesh explantation, mesh-related ileus, and mesh-related problems during laparotomy for other diagnoses. METHODS: Out of 373 patients randomized to prophylactic mesh reinforcement, 242 were included: 127 with onlay and 115 patients with retrorectus mesh. Median follow-up is 27 months (IQR 12-78). Thirty-four patients underwent reoperation for any reason during entire follow-up, 22 after onlay (17.3%) and 12 after retrorectus mesh (10.4%). Reoperation rate for complications that required mesh explantation was 4/127 (3.1%) after onlay and 0/115 (0%) after retrorectus mesh. Mesh-related ileus occurred in none of the onlay group, and 3/115 (2.6%) in the retrorectus group. During subsequent laparotomies for other primary diagnoses, adhesions to the mesh were noted in 3/10 patients in the onlay group and 1/5 patients in the retro-rectus group. Overall, the mesh was removed in 10/127 (7.9%) in the onlay group and 7/115 (6.1%) patients in the retro-rectus group. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients receiving a prophylactic mesh during midline laparotomy closure, low incidences of mesh-related complications requiring reoperation and mesh-related problems during unrelated subsequent laparotomies were found, for both the onlay and retrorectus techniques.

Learning Curves of Ivor Lewis Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy by Hospital and Surgeon Characteristics: A Retrospective Multinational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pooled learning curves of Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) in hospitals stratified by predefined hospital- and surgeon-related factors. BACKGROUND: Ivor Lewis (TMIE is known to have a long learning curve which is associated with considerable learning associated morbidity. It is unknown whether hospital and surgeon characteristics are associated with more efficient learning. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive Ivor Lewis TMIE patients in 14 European hospitals was performed. Outcome parameters used as proxy for efficient learning were learning curve length, learning associated morbidity, and the plateau level regarding anastomotic leakage and textbook outcome. Pooled incidences were plotted for the factor-based subgroups using generalized additive models and 2-phase models. Casemix predicted outcomes were plotted and compared with observed outcomes. The investigated factors included annual volume, TMIE experience, clinic visits, courses and fellowships followed, and proctor supervision. RESULTS: This study included 2121 patients. The length of the learning curve was shorter for centers with an annual volume >50 compared to centers with an annual volume <50. Analysis with an annual volume cut-off of 30 cases showed similar but less pronounced results. No outcomes suggesting more efficient learning were found for longer experience as consultant, visiting an expert clinic, completing a minimally invasive esophagectomy fellowship or implementation under proctor supervision. CONCLUSIONS: More efficient learning was observed in centers with higher annual volume. Visiting an expert clinic, completing a fellowship, or implementation under a proctor's supervision were not associated with more efficient learning.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent long-term complication after abdominal surgery, with a prevalence greater than 30% in high-risk groups. The aim of the PRIMA trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in high-risk patients, to prevent incisional hernia. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. We included patients aged 18 years or older who were undergoing elective midline laparotomy and had either an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 or higher. We randomly assigned participants using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three treatment groups: primary suture; onlay mesh reinforcement; or sublay mesh reinforcement. The primary endpoint was incidence of incisional hernia during 2 years of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by logistic regression. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761475. FINDINGS: Between March, 2009, and December, 2012, 498 patients were enrolled to the study, of whom 18 were excluded before randomisation. Therefore, we included 480 patients in the primary analysis: 107 were assigned primary suture only, 188 were allocated onlay mesh reinforcement, and 185 were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement. 92 patients were identified with an incisional hernia, 33 (30%) who were allocated primary suture only, 25 (13%) who were assigned onlay mesh reinforcement, and 34 (18%) who were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement (onlay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, OR 0·37, 95% CI 0·20-0·69; p=0·0016; sublay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, 0·55, 0·30-1·00; p=0·05). Seromas were more frequent in patients allocated onlay mesh reinforcement (34 of 188) than in those assigned primary suture (five of 107; p=0·002) or sublay mesh reinforcement (13 of 185; p=0·002). The incidence of wound infection did not differ between treatment groups (14 of 107 primary suture; 25 of 188 onlay mesh reinforcement; and 19 of 185 sublay mesh reinforcement). INTERPRETATION: A significant reduction in incidence of incisional hernia was achieved with onlay mesh reinforcement compared with sublay mesh reinforcement and primary suture only. Onlay mesh reinforcement has the potential to become the standard treatment for high-risk patients undergoing midline laparotomy. FUNDING: Baxter; B Braun Surgical SA.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Background: Incisional hernia occurs approximately in 40% of high-risk patients after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh placement has shown promising results, but long-term outcomes are needed. The present study aimed to assess the long-term incisional hernia rates of the previously conducted PRIMA trial with radiological follow-up. Methods: In the PRIMA trial, patients with increased risk of incisional hernia formation (AAA or BMI ≥27 kg/m2) were randomised in a 1:2:2 ratio to primary suture, onlay mesh or sublay mesh closure in three different countries in eleven institutions. Incisional hernia during follow-up was diagnosed by any of: CT, ultrasound and physical examination, or during surgery. Assessors and patients were blinded until 2-year follow-up. Time-to-event analysis according to intention-to-treat principle was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. Trial registration: NCT00761475 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Findings: Between 2009 and 2012, 480 patients were randomized: 107 primary suture, 188 onlay mesh and 185 sublay mesh. Five-year incisional hernia rates were 53.4% (95% CI: 40.4-64.8), 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7-38.8), 29.8% (95% CI: 17.9-42.6), respectively. Compared to primary suture, onlay mesh (HR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.248-0.614, p < 0.001) and sublay mesh (HR: 0.485, 95% CI: 0.309-0.761, p = 0.002) were associated with a significantly lower risk of incisional hernia development. Interpretation: Prophylactic mesh placement remained effective in reducing incisional hernia occurrence after midline laparotomy in high-risk patients during long-term follow-up. Hernia rates in the primary suture group were higher than previously anticipated. Funding: B. Braun.

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitis and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitis in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037).

BACKGROUND: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). METHODS/DESIGN: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs. DISCUSSION: The Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR2037.

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

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

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.

Laparoscopic vs. open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Incisional hernia is the most frequent surgical complication after laparotomy. Up to 30% of all patients undergoing laparotomy develop an incisional hernia. OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic vs open ventral incisional hernia repair with regard to postoperative pain and nausea, operative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, hospital admission, and recurrence rate. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial between May 1999 and December 2006 with a mean follow-up period of 35 months. SETTING: All patients were operated on in a clinical setting at 1 of the 2 participating university medical centers or at the other 8 teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred six patients from 10 hospitals were randomized equally to laparoscopic or open mesh repair. Patients with an incisional hernia larger than 3 cm and smaller than 15 cm, either primary or recurrent, were included. Patients were excluded if they had an open abdomen treatment in their medical histories. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic or open ventral incisional hernia repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the trial was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes were use of analgesics, perioperative and postoperative complications, operative time, postoperative nausea, length of hospital stay, recurrence, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: Median blood loss during the operation was significantly less (10 mL vs 50 mL; P = .05) as well as the number of patients receiving a wound drain (3% vs. 45%; P < .001) in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was longer (100 minutes vs. 76 minutes; P = .001). Perioperative complications were significantly higher after laparoscopy (9% vs. 2%). Visual analog scale scores for pain and nausea, completed before surgery and 3 days and 1 and 4 weeks postoperatively, showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. At a mean follow-up period of 35 months, a recurrence rate of 14% was reported in the open group and 18%, in the laparoscopic group (P = .30). The size of the defect was found to be an independent predictor for recurrence (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During the operation, there was less blood loss and less need for a wound drain in the laparoscopic group. However, operative time was longer during laparoscopy. Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Visual analog scores for pain and nausea did not differ between groups. The incidence of a recurrence was similar in both groups. The size of the defect was found to be an independent factor for recurrence of an incisional hernia.