Colonoscopic-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for Colonic Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study (LIMERIC-Study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation ± 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete.

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

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.

Minimally invasive 'step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN13975868].

BACKGROUND: The initial treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis is conservative. Intervention is indicated in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In the Netherlands, the standard intervention is necrosectomy by laparotomy followed by continuous postoperative lavage (CPL). In recent years several minimally invasive strategies have been introduced. So far, these strategies have never been compared in a randomised controlled trial. The PANTER study (PAncreatitis, Necrosectomy versus sTEp up appRoach) was conceived to yield the evidence needed for a considered policy decision. METHODS/DESIGN: 88 patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomly allocated to either group A) minimally invasive 'step-up approach' starting with drainage followed, if necessary, by videoscopic assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) or group B) maximal necrosectomy by laparotomy. Both procedures are followed by CPL. Patients will be recruited from 20 hospitals, including all Dutch university medical centres, over a 3-year period. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients suffering from postoperative major morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints are complications, new onset sepsis, length of hospital and intensive care stay, quality of life and total (direct and indirect) costs. To demonstrate that the 'step-up approach' can reduce the major morbidity and mortality rate from 45 to 16%, with 80% power at 5% alpha, a total sample size of 88 patients was calculated. DISCUSSION: The PANTER-study is a randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of a minimally invasive 'step-up approach' in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis.