Multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial of standard abdominal wound edge protection with surgical dressings versus coverage with a sterile circular polyethylene drape for prevention of surgical site infections: a CHIR-Net trial (BaFO; NCT01181206).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether circular plastic wound edge protectors (CWEPs) significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in comparison to standard surgical towels in patients undergoing laparotomy. BACKGROUND: SSIs cause substantial morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and costs and remain one of the most frequent surgical complications. CWEPs have been proposed as a measure to reduce the incidence of SSIs. METHODS: In this randomized controlled, multicenter, 2-arm, parallel-group design, patient- and observer-blinded trial patients undergoing open elective abdominal surgery were assigned to either intraoperative wound coverage with a CWEP or standard coverage with surgical towels. Primary endpoint was superiority of intervention over control in terms of the incidence of SSIs within a 30-day postoperative period. RESULTS: Between September 2010 and November 2012, 608 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomized at 16 centers across Germany. Three patients in the device group and 11 patients in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Patients' and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. Forty-eight patients discontinued the study prematurely, mainly because of relaparotomy (control, n=9; intervention, n=9) and death (control, n=4; intervention, n=7). A total of 79 patients experienced SSIs within 30 days of surgery, 27 of 274 (9.9%) in the device group and 52 of 272 (19.1%) in the control group (odds ratio=0.462, 95% confidence interval: 0.281-0.762; P=0.002). Subgroup analyses indicate that the effect could be more pronounced in colorectal surgery, and in clean-contaminated/contaminated surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that CWEPs are effective at reducing the incidence of SSIs in elective and clean or clean-contaminated open abdominal surgery.

HAnd Suture Versus STApling for Closure of Loop Ileostomy (HASTA Trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the HASTA trial was to compare hand suture versus stapling loop ileostomy closure in a randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Bowel obstruction is one of the main and the clinically and economically most relevant complication following closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. The best surgical technique for closure of loop ileostomy has not been defined yet. METHODS: HASTA trial is a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled surgical trial with 2 parallel groups to compare hand suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy. The primary endpoint was the rate of bowel obstruction within 30 days after ileostomy closure. RESULTS: A total of 337 randomized patients undergoing closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection because of rectal cancer in 27 centers were included. The overall rate of postoperative ileus after ileostomy closure was 13.4%. Seventeen of 165 (10.3%) patients in the stapler group and 27 of 163 (16.6%) in the hand suture group developed bowel obstruction within 30 days postoperatively [odds ratio (OR) = 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-3.31 = 0.10]. Duration of surgical intervention was significantly shorter in the stapler group (15 minutes; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis of potential risk factors did not reveal any significant correlation with development of postoperative ileus. Rate of anastomotic leakage (stapler: 3.0%, hand suture: 1.8%, P = 0.48) did not differ significantly as well as all other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapler ileo-ileostomy for ileostomy closure are equally effective in terms of postoperative bowel obstruction, with stapler anastomosis leading to a shorter operation time. Postoperative ileus after ileostomy reversal remains a relevant complication.