The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear. METHODS: This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality. RESULTS: Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate.

Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein (the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial was designed to compare the most common technique for open mesh repair (Lichtenstein) with the currently preferred minimally invasive technique (total extra peritoneal, TEP) for the surgical correction of inguinal hernia. METHODS: A total of 660 patients were randomized to Lichtenstein or TEP procedure. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, period until complete recovery, and quality of life (QOL). Recurrences, operating time, complications, chronic pain, and costs were secondary endpoints. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov and carries the ID: NCT00788554. RESULTS: About 336 patients were randomized to TEP, and 324 to Lichtenstein repair. TEP was associated with less postoperative pain until 6 weeks postoperatively (P=0.01). Chronic pain was comparable (25% vs. 29%). Less impairment of inguinal sensibility was seen after TEP (7% vs. 30%, P=0.01). Mean operating time for a unilateral hernia with TEP was longer (54 vs. 49 minutes, P=0.03) but comparable for bilateral hernias. Incidence of adverse events during surgery was higher with TEP (5.8% vs. 1.6%, P<0.004), but postoperative complications (33% vs. 33%), hospital stay and QOL were similar. After TEP, patients had a faster recovery of daily activities (ADL) and less absence from work (P=0.01). After a mean follow-up of 49 months, recurrences (3.8% vs. 3.0%, P=0.64) and total costs (euro3.096 vs. euro3.198) were similar. CONCLUSION: TEP procedure was associated with more adverse events during surgery but less postoperative pain, faster recovery of daily activities, quicker return to work, and less impairment of sensibility after 1 year. Recurrence rates and chronic pain were comparable. TEP is recommended in experienced hands.

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.

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation is a common practice before elective colorectal surgery. We aimed to compare the rate of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resections and primary anastomoses between patients who did or did not have mechanical bowel preparation. METHODS: We did a multicentre randomised non-inferiority study at 13 hospitals. We randomly assigned 1431 patients who were going to have elective colorectal surgery to either receive mechanical bowel preparation or not. Patients who did not have mechanical bowel preparation had a normal meal on the day before the operation. Those who did were given a fluid diet, and mechanical bowel preparation with either polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage, and the study was designed to test the hypothesis that patients who are given mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery do not have a lower risk of anastomotic leakage than those who are not. The median follow-up was 24 days (IQR 17-34). We analysed patients who were treated as per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00288496. FINDINGS: 77 patients were excluded: 46 who did not have a bowel resection; 21 because of missing outcome data; and 10 who withdrew, cancelled, or were excluded for other reasons. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ between both groups: 32/670 (4.8%) patients who had mechanical bowel preparation and 37/684 (5.4%) in those who did not (difference 0.6%, 95% CI -1.7% to 2.9%, p=0.69). Patients who had mechanical bowel preparation had fewer abscesses after anastomotic leakage than those who did not (2/670 [0.3%] vs 17/684 [2.5%], p=0.001). Other septic complications, fascia dehiscence, and mortality did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: We advise that mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can safely be abandoned.

Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study.

HYPOTHESIS: Mesh repair is generally preferred for surgical correction of inguinal hernia, although the merits of endoscopic techniques over open surgery are still debated. Herein, minimally invasive total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty (TEP) was compared with Lichtenstein repair to determine if one is associated with less postoperative pain, hypoesthesia, and hernia recurrence. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Academic research. PATIENTS: Six hundred sixty patients were randomized to TEP or Lichtenstein repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary end points were hernia recurrence, operative complications, operating time, length of hospital stay, time to complete recovery, quality of life, chronic pain, and operative costs. RESULTS: At 5 years after surgery, TEP was associated with less chronic pain (P = .004). Impairment of inguinal sensibility was less frequently seen after TEP vs Lichtenstein repair (1% vs 22%, P < .001). Operative complications were more frequent after TEP vs Lichtenstein repair (6% vs 2%, P < .001), while no difference was noted in length of hospital stay. After TEP, patients had faster time to return to daily activities (P < .002) and less absence from work (P = .001). Although operative costs were higher for TEP, total costs were comparable for the 2 procedures, as were overall hernia recurrences at 5 years after surgery. However, among experienced surgeons, significantly lower hernia recurrence rates were seen after TEP (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, TEP was associated with more operative complications, longer operating time, and higher operative costs; however, total costs were comparable for the 2 procedures. Chronic pain and impairment of inguinal sensibility were more frequent after Lichtenstein repair. Although overall hernia recurrence rates were comparable for both procedures, hernia recurrence rates among experienced surgeons were significantly lower after TEP. Patient satisfaction was also significantly higher after TEP. Therefore, TEP should be recommended in experienced hands. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00788554.

Evaluation of morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage following elective colorectal surgery in patients treated with or without mechanical bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: A previous multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not guard against anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. The aim of this complementary study was to evaluate the effects of MBP on morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was performed of a randomized trial comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage and septic complications with and without MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. RESULTS: Elective colorectal surgery was performed in 1,433 patients with primary anastomoses, of whom 63 patients developed anastomotic leakage. Twenty-eight patients (44%) received MBP and 35 patients (56%) did not. Mortality rate, initial need for surgical reintervention, and extent of bowel contamination did not differ between groups (29% vs 40%; P = .497, P = .667, and P = .998, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: No benefit of MBP was found regarding morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery.

Outcome after emergency surgery for acute perforated diverticulitis in 200 cases.

BACKGROUND: Mortality and morbidity rates of acute perforated diverticulitis remain high. The ideal treatment is still controversial. The object of this study was to compare patients with perforated diverticulitis treated either by resection with primary anastomosis (PA) or Hartmann's procedure (HP). METHODS: A multicenter study was carried out on 200 consecutive patients with acute perforated diverticulitis who were presented in the surgical units of four affiliated teaching hospitals in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, between 1995 and 2005. Mortality and morbidity were compared in relation to type of surgery, ASA classification, age, gender, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), Hinchey score, surgeon's experience, and the time of operation. RESULTS: There was a tendency for more severely affected patients (Hinchey, MPI, ASA and age) to undergo HP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant difference in mortality between HP and PA. After HP, more patients needed one or more reinterventions to treat postoperative complications compared to PA. Besides, HP resulted in a longer total hospital and intensive care unit stay. Specialist colorectal surgeons performed significantly more frequently a PA instead of a HP and had fewer postoperative complications than general surgeons. The time of operation did not influence the choice of surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: Selected patients with perforated diverticulitis can be managed well by PA, as it does not seem to be inferior to HP in terms of severe postoperative complications that need surgical or radiological reintervention and mortality. This decision should be made while taking into account the patient's concomitant diseases, response on preoperative resuscitation and the availability of a surgeon experienced in colorectal surgery.