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.

Short-term results of a randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture with primary glued mesh augmentation to prevent incisional hernia.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is one of the most frequent postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm and patients with a body mass index of 27 or higher have an increased risk to develop incisional hernia. Primary mesh augmentation is a method in which the abdominal wall is strengthened to reduce incisional hernia incidence. This study focused on the short-term results of the PRImary Mesh Closure of Abdominal Midline Wounds trial, a multicenter double blind randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012 patients were included if they were operated via midline laparotomy, and had an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body mass index of 27 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive primary suture, onlay mesh augmentation (OMA), or sublay mesh augmentation. RESULTS: Outcomes represent results after 1-month follow-up. A total of 480 patients were randomized. During analysis, significantly (P = 0.002) more seromas were detected after OMA (n = 34, 18.1%) compared with primary suture (n = 5, 4.7%) and sublay mesh augmentation (n = 13, 7%). No differences were discovered in any of the other outcomes such as surgical site infection, hematoma, reintervention, or readmission. Multivariable analysis revealed an increase in seroma formation after OMA with an odds ratio of 4.3 (P = 0.004) compared with primary suture and an odds ratio of 2.9 (P = 0.003) compared with sublay mesh augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these short-term results, primary mesh augmentation can be considered a safe procedure with only an increase in seroma formation after OMA, but without an increased risk of surgical site infection.

The use of negative-pressure wound therapy in pilonidal sinus disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard open wound care after surgical excision.

BACKGROUND: Pilonidal sinus disease is associated with significant morbidity after surgical treatment with regard to wound healing. Recent case studies suggested that negative-pressure wound therapy as primary treatment following surgical excision may shorten the duration of wound healing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the role of vacuum therapy in pilonidal sinus disease: negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard open wound care after surgical excision. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy for 2 weeks or standard open wound healing. The primary end point of the study was the time to complete wound healing. Secondary end points were visual analog scale score, wound size ratio at day 14 (ie, wound healing rate), time to resume daily activities, and recurrence within 6 months after wound closure. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included in the study: 24 patients were treated with vacuum therapy, and 25 patients underwent standard open wound care. Complete wound healing was achieved at a median of 84 days in the vacuum therapy group versus 93 days in control patients (p = 0.44). The wound size ratio was significantly lower in the vacuum therapy group (0.30 versus 0.57, p = 0.02), ie, higher wound healing rate in the first 2 weeks. There was no difference in visual analog scale scores and disease recurrence between both groups. The time to resume full daily activities after surgery was 27 days in the patients undergoing vacuum therapy and 29 days in the control patients (p = 0.92). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the small number of patients, the lack of blinding to patients and doctors, and the absence of patient quality-of-life evaluation. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to apply vacuum therapy in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease, and it has a positive effect on wound size reduction in the first 2 weeks. However, there is no difference in time to complete wound healing and time to resume daily life activities.

The surgical anatomy of the small saphenous vein and adjacent nerves in relation to endovenous thermal ablation.

BACKGROUND: Thermal damage to peripheral nerves is a known complication of endovenous thermal ablation (EVA) of the small saphenous vein (SSV). Therefore, the main objective of this anatomic study was to define a safe zone in the lower leg where EVA of the SSV can be performed safely. METHODS: The anatomy of the SSV and adjacent nerves was studied in 20 embalmed human specimens. The absolute distances between the SSV and the sural nerve (SN) (closest/nearest branch) were measured over the complete length of the leg (>120 data points per leg), and the presence of the interlaying deep fascia was mapped. The distance between the SSV and the tibial nerve (TN) and the common peroneal nerve was assessed. A new analysis method, computer-assisted surgical anatomy mapping, was used to visualize the gathered data. RESULTS: The distance between the SSV and the SN was highly variable. In the proximal one-third of the lower leg, the distance between the vein and the nerve was <5 mm in 70% of the legs. In 95%, the deep fascia was present between the SSV and the SN. In the distal two-thirds of the lower leg, the distance between the vein and the nerve was <5 mm in 90% of the legs. The deep fascia was present between both structures in 15%. In 19 legs, the SN partially ran beneath the deep fascia. In the saphenopopliteal region, the average shortest distance between the SSV and the TN was 4.4 mm. In 20%, the distance was <1 mm. The average, shortest distance between the SSV and the common peroneal nerve was 14.2 mm. The distance was <1 mm in one leg. CONCLUSIONS: At the saphenopopliteal region, the TN is at risk during EVA. In the distal two-thirds of the lower leg, the SN is at risk for (thermal) damage due to the small distance to the SSV and the absence of the deep fascia between both structures. The proximal one-third of the lower leg is the optimal region for EVA of the SSV to avoid nerve damage; the fascia between the SSV and the SN is a natural barrier in this region that could preclude (thermal) damage to the nerve.

A randomized trial of cryo stripping versus conventional stripping of the great saphenous vein.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter randomized clinical trial compared cryo stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV) with conventional stripping. METHODS: The study randomized 494 patients with symptomatic (CEAP) clinical severity class 2 to 4 to cryo stripping (n = 249) or conventional stripping (n = 245). The primary outcome was residual GSV 6 months after surgery measured by venous duplex ultrasound imaging. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, operation time, and postoperative neural damage. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. Quality of life was measured at 6 and 26 weeks postoperatively with the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey. RESULTS: The two groups were well matched at baseline. The percentage of patients with residual GSV at 6 months (primary outcome) was 44% (102 of 230) in the cryo group and 15% (33 of 215) in the conventional group (difference 29%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21%-37%, P < .001). Median operation time was significantly shorter in the cryo group (30 minutes) compared with the conventional group (39 minutes). Neural damage was 12% in both groups, and thus not significantly different. Scores on the subdomains of the SF-36 showed no significant change between the groups. The AVVQ after conventional stripping was 8.0, which was a better result than the 11.7 result after cryo stripping (difference 2.6 points; 95% CI, 1.0-4.2; P = .001, repeated measurements analysis of variance with adjustment for baseline scores). CONCLUSIONS: Cryo stripping accounts for numerous procedural failures and hence residual GSV in patients. The AVVQ showed small but significantly better results for patients after a conventional stripping. Cryo stripping has no benefits over conventional stripping.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic closure of a PPU is as safe as conventional open correction. METHODS: The study was based on a randomized controlled trial in which nine medical centers from the Netherlands participated. A total of 109 patients with symptoms of PPU and evidence of air under the diaphragm were scheduled to receive a PPU repair. After exclusion of 8 patients during the operation, outcomes were analyzed for laparotomy (n = 49) and for the laparoscopic procedure (n = 52). RESULTS: Operating time in the laparoscopy group was significantly longer than in the open group (75 min versus 50 min). Differences regarding postoperative dosage of opiates and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scoring system were in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. The VAS score on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 was significant lower (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. Complications were equally distributed. Hospital stay was also comparable: 6.5 days in the laparoscopic group versus 8.0 days in the open group (P = 0.235). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with open repair. The results considering postoperative pain favor the laparoscopic procedure.

Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Two randomized trials have shown better outcomes with elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms than with conventional open repair in the first month after the procedure. We investigated whether this advantage is sustained beyond the perioperative period. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients who had received a diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter and who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. Survival after randomization was calculated with the use of Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared with the use of the log-rank test on an intention-to-treat-basis. RESULTS: Two years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 89.6 percent for open repair and 89.7 percent for endovascular repair (difference, -0.1 percentage point; 95 percent confidence interval, -6.8 to 6.7 percentage points). The cumulative rates of aneurysm-related death were 5.7 percent for open repair and 2.1 percent for endovascular repair (difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.5 to 7.9 percentage points). This advantage of endovascular repair over open repair was entirely accounted for by events occurring in the perioperative period, with no significant difference in subsequent aneurysm-related mortality. The rate of survival free of moderate or severe complications was also similar in the two groups at two years (at 65.9 percent for open repair and 65.6 percent for endovascular repair; difference, 0.3 percentage point; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.0 to 10.6 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative survival advantage with endovascular repair as compared with open repair is not sustained after the first postoperative year.

Endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery in the treatment of small saphenous vein incompetence.

INTRODUCTION: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is compared with conventional surgery for the treatment of varicose veins based on incompetence of the small saphenous vein and the saphenopopliteal junction (SPJ). METHODS: In two Dutch hospitals, 189 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive EVLA (810-nm laser) or ligation of the SPJ. End points were success rate measured with duplex ultrasound (6 weeks post-treatment), perioperative pain, quality of life, duration of surgery, difficulty of surgery, complications, cosmetic results, and number of days to resume work and normal activities. Pain was measured on a visual analog scale (VAS). Quality of life was assessed using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Euro Qol-5D. The follow-up duration in this article is 6 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients have been treated and analyzed. One hundred eighteen patients (67%) underwent EVLA, and 57 patients (33%) underwent ligation of the SPJ. The patient characteristics were similar in both groups. In the surgery group, 21% residual incompetence of the SPJ was seen after 6 weeks, compared with 0.9% in the laser group. Both treatment modalities reduced pain after 6 weeks. One week post-treatment, patients in the EVLA group temporarily experienced more pain compared with the surgery group (31 vs 18 on a VAS from 0 to 100). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to quality of life. Both treatments did show improvement in quality of life. Also with regard to the cosmetics, there were no differences, aside from the fact that patients rated their scar as more beautiful after EVLA. After EVLA, patients could return to work more quickly. The operation time was longer in the surgery group. After 2 weeks, there were significantly more neurological complications in the surgery group: 18 (31%) vs 16 (17%) patients in the EVLA group. Ten percent of patients in the surgery group developed a surgical site infection vs 0% in the EVLA group. CONCLUSIONS: EVLA provides an excellent alternative to conventional surgery in the treatment of symptomatic varicose veins due to an incompetent small saphenous vein with SPJ. EVLA has a superior immediate success rate, is easier and faster, and has fewer complications.