Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach. PURPOSE: This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

Meta-analysis of primary open versus closed cannulation strategy for totally implantable venous access port implantation.

BACKGROUND: There is still no reference standard for the implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). A recently published multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) revealed a significantly greater risk of pneumothorax after closed cannulation than after an open strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide an update of the available evidence for the safety and effectiveness of primary open versus closed cannulation strategy. METHODS: RCTs comparing outcomes of open cut-down of the cephalic vein and closed cannulation of the subclavian vein were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pneumothorax. A beta-binominal model was applied to combine the respective outcomes, and results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Six RCTs with a total of 1831 patients were included in final analysis. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant superiority of the open cut-down technique regarding pneumothorax (OR 0.308, 95% CI 0.122 to 0.776), but a statistically significant higher failure of the primary technique for the open cut-down technique than for closed cannulation (OR 2.364, 95% CI 1.051 to 5.315). There were no significant differences between the two procedures regarding other morbidity endpoints. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows a general superiority of open cut-down of the cephalic vein over closed cannulation of the subclavian vein regarding the occurrence of pneumothorax. Open cut-down should be the first-line approach for TIVAP implantation. Closed cannulation should be performed with ultrasound as second-line procedure if the open technique fails. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013005180.

Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900).

OBJECTIVES: PORTAS-3 was designed to compare the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax in a primary open versus closed strategy for port implantation. BACKGROUND DATA: The implantation strategy for totally implantable venous access ports with the optimal benefit/risk ratio remains unclear. METHODS: PORTAS-3 was a multicentre, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Adult patients with oncological disease scheduled for elective port implantation were randomized to a primary open or closed strategy. Primary endpoint was the rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax. Assuming a difference of 2.5% between the 2 groups, a sample size of 1154 patients was needed to prove superiority of the open group. A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Between November 9, 2014 and September 5, 2016, 1205 patients were randomized. Of these, 1159 (open n = 583; closed n = 576) were finally analyzed. The rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax was significantly reduced with the open strategy [odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.88; P = 0.029]. Operation time was shorter for the closed strategy. Primary success rates, tolerability, morbidity, dose rate of radiation, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: A primary open strategy by cut-down of the cephalic vein, if necessary enhanced by a modified Seldinger technique, reduces the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax after central venous port implantation significantly compared with a closed strategy by primary puncture of the subclavian vein without routine sonographic guidance. Therefore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS 00004900.

Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001).

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy. METHODS: In this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques. RESULTS: A total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999). DISCUSSION: Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.

Sedation-related complications during anesthesiologist-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) require adequate sedation or general anesthesia. To date, there is lack of consensus regarding who should administer sedation in these patients. Several studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered sedation for ERCP; however, data regarding anesthesiologist-administered sedation remain limited. This prospective single-center study investigated the safety and efficacy of anesthesiologist-administered sedation and the rate of successful performed ERCP procedures. METHODS: The study included 200 patients who underwent ERCP following anesthesiologist-administered sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Procedural data, oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate, recovery score, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, as well as 30-day mortality and morbidity data were analyzed. RESULTS: Sedation-related complications occurred in 36 of 200 patients (18%) and included hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (O2 saturation < 90%) in 18 patients (9%) each. Most events were minor and did not necessitate discontinuation of the procedure. However, ERCP was terminated in 2 patients (1%) secondary to sedation-related complications. Successful cannulation was performed in all patients. The mean duration of the examination was 25 ± 16 min. Mean recovery time was 14 ± 10 min, and high post-procedural satisfaction was observed in both, patients (mean visual analogue scale [VAS] 9.6 ± 0.8) and endoscopists (mean VAS 9.3 ± 1.3). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that anesthesiologist-administered sedation is safe in patients undergoing ERCP and is associated with a high rate of successful ERCP, shorter procedure time, and more rapid post-anesthesia recovery, with high patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis reveals a prognostic classifier for non-metastatic colorectal cancer (ProMCol classifier).

OBJECTIVE: Pathological staging used for the prediction of patient survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) provides only limited information. DESIGN: Here, a genome-wide study of DNA methylation was conducted for two cohorts of patients with non-metastatic CRC (screening cohort (n=572) and validation cohort (n=274)). A variable screening for prognostic CpG sites was performed in the screening cohort using marginal testing based on a Cox model and subsequent adjustment of the p-values via independent hypothesis weighting using the methylation difference between 34 pairs of tumour and normal mucosa tissue as auxiliary covariate. From the 1000 CpG sites with the smallest adjusted p-value, 20 CpG sites with the smallest Brier score for overall survival (OS) were selected. Applying principal component analysis, we derived a prognostic methylation-based classifier for patients with non-metastatic CRC (ProMCol classifier). RESULTS: This classifier was associated with OS in the screening (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, p=6.2E-10) and the validation cohort (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.82, p=0.001). The independent validation of the ProMCol classifier revealed a reduction of the prediction error for 3-year OS from 0.127, calculated only with standard clinical variables, to 0.120 combining the clinical variables with the classifier and for 4-year OS from 0.153 to 0.140. All results were confirmed for disease-specific survival. CONCLUSION: The ProMCol classifier could improve the prognostic accuracy for patients with non-metastatic CRC.

Decreasing Use of Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer Irrespective of Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy underuse in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with colon cancer has been reported in previous studies. However, these studies were mostly registry-based and limited in their potential to consider underlying reasons of such undertreatment. This study aimed to evaluate patient and hospital determinants of chemotherapeutic treatment in patients with stage III colon cancer, with a particular focus on age and underlying reasons for nontreatment of elderly patients. METHODS: A total of 629 patients with stage III colon cancer who were diagnosed in 2003 through 2012 and recruited into a population-based study in the Rhine-Neckar region of Germany were included. Information on sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and treatment was collected from patient interviews and physicians. Patient (with an emphasis on age) and hospital factors were evaluated for their associations with administration of adjuvant chemotherapy overall and of oxaliplatin specifically using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Administration of chemotherapy decreased from 94% in patients aged 30 to 64 years to 51% in those aged ≥75 years. A very strong decline in chemotherapy use with age persisted even after comprehensive adjustment for multiple patient factors-including comorbidities-and hospital factors and was also seen among patients without any major comorbidities. Between 2005 and 2008, and 2009 and 2012, chemotherapy administration in patients aged ≥75 years decreased from 60% to 41%. Among chemotherapy recipients, old age was also strongly associated with higher odds of nonadministration of oxaliplatin. The 2 most commonly reported reasons for chemotherapy nonreceipt among the study population were patient refusal (30%) and old age (24%). CONCLUSIONS: Age was the strongest predictor of chemotherapy underuse, irrespective of comorbidities and even in patients without comorbidities. Such underuse due just to older age in otherwise healthy patients deserves increased attention in clinical practice to ensure that elderly patients also get the best possible care. Patients' refusal as the most frequent reason for chemotherapy nonreceipt also warrants further investigation to exclude misinformation as underlying cause.

Evidence-based recommendations for blinding in surgical trials.

RATIONALE: Blinding reduces performance and detection bias in randomized controlled trials (RCT). There is evidence that lack of blinding leads to overestimation of treatment effects in pharmacological trials. Since surgical trials use interventions with a physical component, blinding is often complicated. The aim of this study was to analyze, in general and abdominal surgery RCT, the status of blinding, the potential for blinding, and the influence of blinding on outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science was conducted to identify RCT with a surgical intervention, starting in 1996, the year when the first CONSORT statement was published. Information on general study characteristics and blinding methods was extracted. The presence or absence of blinding of the study contributors-patients, surgeons, data collectors, outcome assessors, and data analysts-was analyzed. The association of blinding with the trial outcome was investigated for every study contributor. RESULTS: Out of 29,119 articles, 378 RCT were included in the analysis. These investigated a total of 62,522 patients, of whom 15,025 were blinded (24.0%). Contributors could have been blinded in far more trials, as the potential for blinding measures ranged from 69% for outcome assessors to 98% for data analysts. If blinding of surgeons would have been possible but had not been performed, this was associated with more significant trial outcomes (OR 13.670; 95% CI 1.308 to 142.840; p = 0.0289). DISCUSSION: The potential of blinding, an important quality measure in surgical RCT, has not been exhausted. This study summarizes the existing evidence on blinding in surgical trials and gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of blinding in future surgical trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015026837.

Randomized controlled trial on Pringle Maneuver to reduce blood loss during stapler hepatectomy - PriMal StHep.

BACKGROUND: Extended liver resections still bear the risk of severe haemorrhage. Moreover, the amount of blood loss during liver resection determines the need for perioperative blood transfusions and is of prognostic relevance in oncologic surgery. Even though there is an ongoing debate about its effectiveness and tolerable duration, the Pringle Maneuver (PM) as an occlusion of the hepatic inflow is routinely applied to reduce blood loss during parenchymal dissection. In combination with the stapler resection technique, PM is expected to minimize blood loss during major liver resection safely due to the short parenchymal dissection duration. METHODS: In a single center prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel, confirmatory trial the combination of PM and stapler resection technique in patients undergoing right and left hepatectomies will be tested against the control group that applies stapler resection without the use of PM. The primary endpoint of the study is the total intraoperative blood loss. The measurement of the intraoperative blood loss is conducted with respect to all handled rinse fluids during surgery and by weighing used swabs to generate accurate and comparable data. Secondary endpoints include intra- and postoperative blood transfusion requirements, liver function parameters and the 90-day mortality rate. A sample size of fifty-three patients in either group was calculated to detect a clinically significant difference in blood loss of at least 450 ml with an α of 5% at 80% power. The individual follow-up will be 90 days. DISCUSSION: This is the first clinical trial to test the combination of PM and stapler resection technique as a means to reduce intraoperative blood loss in hepatic left or right resection. Given the short parenchymal dissection duration in stapler resection, PM is expected to be applied shortly without compromising liver function postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PriMaL StHep trial has been prospectively registered to the German Clinical Trial Registry (WHO ID: DRKS00010427 ) on April 21st. 2016.

Pylorus Resection Does Not Reduce Delayed Gastric Emptying After Partial Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (PROPP Study, DRKS00004191).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pylorus resection on postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). BACKGROUND: PD is the standard treatment for tumors of the pancreatic head. Preservation of the pylorus has been widely accepted as standard procedure. DGE is a common complication causing impaired oral intake, prolonged hospital stay, and postponed further treatment. Recently, pylorus resection has been shown to reduce DGE. METHODS: Patients undergoing PD for any indication at the University of Heidelberg were randomized to either PD with pylorus preservation (PP) or PD with pylorus resection and complete stomach preservation (PR). The primary endpoint was DGE within 30 days according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were randomized to PP and 93 patients to PR. There were no baseline imbalances between the groups. Overall, 53 of 188 patients (28.2%) developed a DGE (grade: A 15.5%; B 8.8%; C 3.3%). In the PP group 24 of 95 patients (25.3%) and in the PR group 29 of 93 patients (31.2%) developed DGE (odds ratio 1.534, 95% confidence interval 0.788 to 2.987; P = 0.208). Higher BMI, indigestion, and intraabdominal major complications were significant risk factors for DGE. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, pylorus resection during PD did not reduce the incidence or severity of DGE. The development of DGE seems to be multifactorial rather than attributable to pyloric dysfunction alone. Pylorus preservation should therefore remain the standard of care in PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004191.

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical treatment for chronic pancreatitis. Short-term outcomes have been found to be better after duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) than after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. Therefore, we designed the multicentre ChroPac trial to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with chronic pancreatitis within 24 months after surgery. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial was done in 18 hospitals across Europe. Patients with chronic pancreatitis who were planned for elective surgical treatment were randomly assigned to DPPHR or partial pancreatoduodenectomy with a central web-based randomisation tool. The primary endpoint was mean quality of life within 24 months after surgery, measured with the physical functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Primary analysis included all patients who underwent one of the assigned procedures; safety analysis included all patients who underwent surgical intervention (categorised into groups as treated). Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38973832. Recruitment was completed on Sept 3, 2013. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2009, and Sept 3, 2013, 250 patients were randomly assigned to DPPHR (n=125) or partial pancreatoduodenectomy (n=125), of whom 226 patients (115 in the DPPHR group and 111 in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group) were analysed. No difference in quality of life was seen between the groups within 24 months after surgery (75·3 [SD 16·4] for partial pancreatoduodenectomy vs 73·0 [16·4] for DPPHR; mean difference -2·3, 95% CI -6·6 to 2·0; p=0·284). The incidence and severity of serious adverse events did not differ between the groups. 70 (64%) of 109 patients in the DPPHR group and 61 (52%) of 117 patients in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group had at least one serious adverse event, with the most common being reoperations (for reasons other than chronic pancreatitis), gastrointestinal problems, and other surgical morbidity. INTERPRETATION: No differences in quality of life after surgery for chronic pancreatitis were seen between the interventions. Results from single-centre trials showing superiority for DPPHR were not confirmed in the multicentre setting. FUNDING: German Research Foundation (DFG).

Percutaneous versus surgical strategy for tracheostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications.

PURPOSE: Tracheostomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures in intensive care medicine. The two main approaches are open surgical tracheostomy (ST) and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT). This systematic review summarizes and analyzes the existing evidence regarding perioperative and postoperative parameters of safety. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, and MEDLINE to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complications of ST and PDT and to define the strategy with the lower risk of potentially life-threatening events. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook. RESULTS: Twenty-four citations comprising 1795 procedures (PDT: n = 926; ST: n = 869) were found suitable for systematic review. No significant difference in the risk of a potentially life-threatening event (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05, P = 0.62, I 2 = 47%) was found between PDT and ST. There was no difference in mortality (RD - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.88, I 2 = 0%). An increased rate of technical difficulties was shown for PDT (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01, 0.08, P = 0.01, I 2 = 60%). Stomal infection occurred more often with ST (RD - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.08 to - 0.02, P = 0.003, I 2 = 60%). Both techniques can be safely performed on the ICU. Meta-analysis of the duration of procedure was not possible owing to high heterogeneity (I 2 = 99%). CONCLUSION: ST and PDT are safe techniques with low incidence of complications. Both techniques can be performed successfully in an ICU setting. ST can be performed on every patient whereas PDT is restricted by several contraindications like abnormal anatomy, previous surgery, coagulopathies, or difficult airway of the patient. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015021967.

Plasma miR-122 and miR-200 family are prognostic markers in colorectal cancer.

Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have been proposed as minimally invasive prognostic markers for various types of cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the levels of circulating miRNAs that might serve as markers for CRC prognosis and survival. We included plasma samples of 543 CRC patients with stage I-IV disease from a population-based study carried out in Germany. After comprehensive evaluation of current literature, 95 miRNAs were selected and measured with Custom TaqMan® Array MicroRNA Cards. Plasma samples of non-metastatic and metastatic colon cancer patients, each group consisting of ten patients with 'good' and ten patients with 'bad' prognosis were screened. Identified candidate miRNAs were further validated by RT-qPCR in the whole study cohort. The association of the miRNA levels with patients' survival and the prognostic subtypes was analyzed with uni- and multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Increased miR-122 levels were associated with a 'bad' prognostic subtype in metastatic CRC (Odds ratio: 1.563, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.038-2.347) and a shorter relapse-free survival and overall survival for non-metastatic (Hazard ratio (HR): 1.370, 95% CI: 1.028-1.825; HR: 1.353, 95% CI: 1.002-1.828) and metastatic (HR: 1.264, 95% CI: 1.050-1.520; HR: 1.292, 95% CI: 1.078-1.548) CRC patients. Additionally, several members of the miR-200 family showed associations with patients' prognosis and correlations to clinicopathological characteristics. The here identified miRNA markers, miR-122 and the miR-200 family members, could be of use in the development of a multi-marker blood test for CRC prognosis.

Use of a hydrophilic coating wire reduces significantly the rate of central vein punctures and the incidence of pneumothorax in totally implantable access port (TIAP) surgery.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of a Totally Implantable Access Port (TIAP) can be performed either via Central Vein Puncture (CVP) or Brachiocephalic Vein Cut-down (venous section-VS). The primary success rate of TIAP implantation using VS rarely ever achieves 100%. The objective of this study was to describe a modified VS approach using a hydrophilic coated wire (TVS). METHODS: From 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, all patients receiving TIAP implantations were screened. During this time, all patients in whom the primary VS procedure was found to be unsuccessful were analysed. RESULTS: In 2015, 1152 patients had TIAP implantations performed by 24 different surgeons. Of these, 277 patients needed a second line rescue strategy either by CVP (n = 69) or TVS (n = 208). There were no statistically significant differences regarding demographics or indication for TIAP implantation between CVP and TVS. The operation time and the qualification of the operating surgeon between CVP and TVS did not differ significantly. After the introduction of the guidewire with a hydrophilic coated wire, the need for CVP decreased significantly from 12.7% to 8.8% (p < 0.0001). In patients receiving CVP as a second line rescue strategy, the incidence of pneumothorax (n = 3 patients (4.3%)) was significantly higher compared to patients with TVS as a second line rescue strategy (n = 1 patient (0.48%), p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The use of a hydrophilic coated wire significantly decreased the number of CVP and the incidence of pneumothorax. TVS is a safe and successful second-line rescue strategy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of repeated versus single hepatic resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of colorectal liver metastases after a first hepatectomy is common (4-48% of patients). This review investigates the utility of repeated hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and trial registers. All studies comparing repeated hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases with patients who underwent only one hepatectomy were eligible. Outcome criteria were safety parameters and survival rates. Data were analyzed using the random-effects model. RESULTS: In eight observational clinical studies, 450 patients with repeated hepatic resection were compared with 2669 single hepatic resections. Morbidity such as hepatic insufficiency (OR [95% CI] 1.46 [0.69; 3.08], p = 0.32) and biliary leakage and fistula (OR [95% CI] 1.22 [0.80; 1.85], p = 0.35) was comparable between the two groups. Mortality (OR [95% CI] 1.13 [0.46; 2.74], p = 0.79) and overall survival (HR [95% CI] 1.00 [0.63; 1.60], p = 0.99) were not significantly different between the two groups. DISCUSSION: Repeated hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases is safe in selected patients. A prospective, multicenter high-quality trial or register study of repeated hepatic resection will be required to clarify patient-oriented outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life.

Family history and the risk of colorectal cancer: The importance of patients' history of colonoscopy.

Registry-based studies on the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) for persons with a family history (FH) typically did not control for important covariates, such as history of colonoscopy. We aimed to quantify the association between FH and CRC risk, carefully accounting for potential confounders. We conducted a population-based case-control study in Germany. A total of 4,313 patients with a first diagnosis of CRC (cases) and 3,153 controls recruited from 2003 to 2014 were included. We used multiple logistic regression analyses to assess the association between FH and risk of CRC with odds ratios (OR) and the resulting 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A total of 582 cases (13.5%) and 321 (10.2%) controls reported a history of CRC in a first-degree relative, which was associated with a 41% increase in risk of CRC (OR: 1.41, 95% CI 1.22-1.63) after adjustment for sex and age. The OR substantially increased to 1.73 (95% CI, 1.48-2.03) after comprehensive adjustment including previous colonoscopies. Irrespective of their FH status, persons with history of colonoscopies had a lower CRC risk compared with persons without previous colonoscopies and without family history (OR: 0.25, 95% CI, 0.22-0.28 for persons without FH and OR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.36-0.56 for persons with FH). In an era of widespread use of colonoscopy, adjusting for previous colonoscopy is therefore crucial for deriving valid estimates of FH-related CRC risk. Colonoscopy reduces the risk of CRC among those with FH far below levels of people with no FH and no colonoscopy.

Industry Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in General and Abdominal Surgery: An Empirical Study.

BACKGROUND: Industry sponsorship has been identified as a source of bias in several fields of medical science. To date, the influence of industry sponsorship in the field of general and abdominal surgery has not been evaluated. METHODS: A systematic literature search (1985-2014) was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery. Information on funding source, outcome, and methodological quality was extracted. Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A χ test and a multivariate logistic regression analysis with study characteristics and known sources of bias were performed. RESULTS: A total of 7934 articles were screened and 165 randomized controlled trials were included. No difference in methodological quality was found. Industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant results for the primary endpoint (OR, 2.44; CI, 1.04-5.71; P = 0.04). Eighty-eight of 115 (76.5%) industry-funded trials and 19 of 50 (38.0%) non-industry-funded trials reported a positive outcome (OR, 5.32; CI, 2.60-10.88; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials more often reported a positive outcome without statistical justification (OR, 5.79; CI, 2.13-15.68; P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, funding source remained significantly associated with reporting of positive outcome (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Industry funding of surgical trials leads to exaggerated positive reporting of outcomes. This study emphasizes the necessity for declaration of funding source. Industry involvement in surgical research has to ensure scientific integrity and independence and has to be based on full transparency.

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled PANDRA Trial (ISRCTN04937707).

OBJECTIVE: This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of drains does not increase reintervention rates after pancreatic surgery. BACKGROUND: There is considerable uncertainty regarding intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis were randomized to intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage. Primary endpoint was overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention). Secondary endpoints were clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), mortality, morbidity, and hospital stay. The planned sample size was 188 patients per group. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients were randomized. Forty-three patients (9.8%) were excluded because no pancreatic anastomosis was performed, and 395 patients (202 drain, 193 no-drain) were analyzed. Reintervention rates were not inferior in the no-drain group (drain 21.3%, no-drain 16.6%; P = 0.0004). Overall in-hospital mortality (3.0%) was the same in both groups (drain 3.0%, no-drain 3.1%; P = 0.936). Overall surgical morbidity (41.8%) was comparable (P = 0.741). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C: drain 11.9%, no-drain 5.7%; P = 0.030) and fistula-associated complications (drain 26.4%; no drain 13.0%; P = 0.0008) were significantly reduced in the no-drain group. Operation time (P = 0.093), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.174), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.199), biliary leakage (P = 0.382), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.062), burst abdomen (P = 0.480), wound infection (P = 0.758), and hospital stay (P = 0.487) did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Omission of drains was not inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reintervention and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. There is no need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis.