Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare patients' mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). METHODS: The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018. RESULTS: After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6-7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6-7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.

Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely used surgical treatment for posterior pelvic organ prolapse; however, evidence of the utility of revisional surgery is lacking. Our aim was to assess the technical details, safety and outcomes of redo minimally invasive VMR for patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence or relapsed symptoms of internal rectal prolapse (IRP). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent ERP or symptomatic IRP who underwent redo minimally invasive VMR between 2011 and 2016. The study was conducted at three hospitals in Finland. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, in addition to perioperative and short-term postoperative findings. At follow-up, all living patients were sent a questionnaire concerning postoperative disease-related symptoms and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 43 redo minimally invasive VMR were performed during the study period. The indication for reoperation was recurrent ERP in 22 patients and relapsed symptoms of IRP in 21 patients. In most operations (62.8%), the previously used mesh was left in situ and a new one was placed. Ten (23.3%) patients experienced complications, including 2 (4.7%) mesh-related complications. The recurrence rate was 4.5% for ERP. Three patients out of 43 were reoperated on for various reasons. One patient required postoperative laparoscopic hematoma evacuation. Patients operated on for recurrent ERP seemed to benefit more from the reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive redo VMR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for treating posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates.

Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: MRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Our aim was to compare the long-term anatomical outcomes between robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for external or internal rectal prolapse. METHOD: This study is a follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thirty patients were randomly allocated to RVMR (n = 16) or LVMR (n = 14). The primary end-point was maintenance of the restored pelvic anatomy 5 years after the operation, as assessed by magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Secondary outcome measures included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measures and functional results assessed using symptom questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (14 RVMR and 12 LVMR) completed the 5-year follow-up and were included in the study. The MRI results, POP-Q measurements and symptom-specific quality of life measures did not differ between the RVMR and LVMR groups. The MRI measurements of the total study population remained unchanged between 3 months and 5 years. In the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the RVMR group had lower symptom scores (mean 96.0, SD 70.7) than the LVMR group (mean 160.6, SD 58.9; P = 0.004). In the subscales of pelvic organ prolapse (POPDI-6) (mean 23.2, SD 24.3 vs mean 52.4, SD 22.4; P = 0.001) and the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) (mean 38.4, SD 23.3 vs mean 58.6, SD 25.4; P = 0.009), the patients in the RVMR group had significantly better outcomes. CONCLUSION: After VMR, the corrected anatomy was preserved. There were no clinically significant differences in anatomical results between the RVMR and LVMR procedures 5 years after surgery based on MR defaecography. However, functional outcomes were better after RMVR.

Outcomes of sacral neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain: a Finnish national multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) in chronic pelvic pain (CPP) patients in the Finnish national cohort. METHODS: This was a register-based retrospective study, involving all the centers that provide SNM treatment in Finland. The data of all patients treated with SNM for CPP were gathered from Oulu-, Turku-, Tampere- and Helsinki University Hospitals, as well as Jyväskylä and Seinäjoki Central Hospitals. All patients who had been tested for SNM implantation prior to April 2017 were included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were selected for SNM treatment due to CPP from 2004 until 2017. The mean follow-up time was 13.8 months (SD 22.9 months). A total of 28 patients (57%) advanced from testing to permanent stimulator implantation. There were 21 patients (41%) who had a working modulator implanted at the end of follow-up. Patients with endometriosis-related pain had a significantly higher permanent implantation rate than the overall implantation rate (88% vs. 57%; p = 0.01). The endometriosis patients also had a higher overall success rate by the end of the follow-up (75% vs. 41%; p = 0.026) CONCLUSIONS: SNM may be a viable treatment option for patients with CPP due to endometriosis. Further research on SNM treatment for endometriosis patients with refractory CPP is needed.

Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial: protocol for a parallel cohort trial of outcomes using surgical techniques for total mesorectal excision with low anterior resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients.

AIM: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be combined with low anterior resection (LAR) in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. The narrow pelvic space and difficulties in obtaining adequate exposure make surgery technically challenging. Four techniques are used to perform the surgery: open laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery and transanal surgery. Comparative data for these techniques are required to provide clinical data on the surgical management of rectal cancers. METHODS: The Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial will be a prospective, observational, case-matched, four-cohort, multicentre trial designed to study TME with LAR using open laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery or transanal surgery in high-surgical-risk patients with mid-to-low non-metastatic rectal cancer. All surgeries will be performed by surgeons experienced in at least one of the techniques. Oncological, morbidity and functional outcomes will be assessed in a composite primary outcome, with success defined as circumferential resection margin ≥ 1 mm, TME Grade III and minimal postoperative morbidity (absence of Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV complications within 30 days after surgery). Secondary end-points will include the co-primary end-points over the long term (2 years), quality of surgery, quality of life, length of hospital stay, operative time and rate of unplanned conversions. DISCUSSION: This will be the first trial to study all four surgical techniques currently used for TME with LAR in a specific group of high-risk patients. The knowledge obtained will contribute towards helping physicians determine the advantages of each technique and which may be the most appropriate for their patients.

Outcomes of treatment of faecal incontinence with sacral nerve stimulation - a Finnish multicentre study.

AIM: The aim of this multicentre study is to report the results of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) treatment for faecal incontinence (FI) in Finland and determine factors that could influence SNS treatment outcomes. METHOD: This is a national multicentre study, involving all patients tested for SNS implantation in Finland from 1999 to 2017. Data were collected retrospectively from electronic patient archives and analysed for possible effects on treatment outcome. RESULTS: Of the 432 patients with FI tested for SNS, 365 were women. Three hundred and thirteen (72.5%) of the tested patients advanced to permanent implantation of a stimulator. A successful final treatment outcome, with subjective alleviation of FI, was reported by 59.3% of the patients at the end of follow-up (mean 2.4 years, range 8 days to 13.3 years). Patients with obstetric sphincter injury and idiopathic FI had more permanent stimulator implantations than patients with iatrogenic injury (P = 0.012). Male patients had significantly worse test phase outcomes than female patients (P < 0.001). Age did not influence treatment outcome (P = 0.446) CONCLUSION: Subjective final success of SNS treatment for FI was achieved in 59.3% of patients at a mean of 2.4 years. Gender and the aetiology of FI influenced the test phase and final treatment outcome of SNS treatment.

Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February-May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up. RESULTS: There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were 'much better' (RVMR) and 'slightly better' (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.

A prospective pilot study on MRI visibility of iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride mesh after ventral rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides excellent information about pelvic anatomy after ventral rectopexy, but the position of the conventional mesh is not seen constantly. Iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes are proven to have MRI visibility in hernia or vaginal reconstructive surgery. This prospective pilot study was designed to assess the visualization, position, and shape of the magnetic resonance (MR)-visible synthetic pelvic mesh used in minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. METHODS: Eight patients with pelvic organ prolapse were recruited for laparoscopic (LVMR) or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) with a synthetic MR-visible PVDF mesh. A follow-up visit was scheduled at 3 months after surgery. MR imaging was performed to evaluate the position and dimensions of the mesh and anatomical result. The visibility of the mesh in each sequence was assessed subjectively. RESULTS: The visibility of the mesh was best on T1-weighted flash images. The mesh was also well visualized on T2-weighted sagittal images. T2-weighted images, in general, provided best visualization of the surrounding anatomical structures and enabled assessment of the mesh fixation. CONCLUSIONS: T2 sagittal and T1-weighted flash images provide the best information about the position and integrity of the iron oxide-impregnated PVDF mesh after LVMR or RVMR with a short examination time.

Optimising the antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial (APPAC II trial).

BACKGROUND: Based on epidemiological and clinical data acute appendicitis can present either as uncomplicated (70-80%) or complicated (20-30%) disease. Recent studies have shown that antibiotic therapy is both safe and cost-effective for a CT-scan confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, based on the study protocols to ensure patient safety, these randomised studies used mainly broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics requiring additional hospital resources and prolonged hospital stay. As we now know that antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis is feasible and safe, further studies evaluating optimisation of the antibiotic treatment regarding both antibiotic spectrum and shorter hospital stay are needed to evaluate antibiotics as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. METHODS: APPAC II trial is a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing per oral (p.o.) antibiotic monotherapy with intravenous (i.v.) antibiotic therapy followed by p.o. antibiotics in the treatment of CT-scan confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Adult patients with CT-scan diagnosed uncomplicated acute appendicitis will be enrolled in nine Finnish hospitals. The intended sample size is 552 patients. Primary endpoint is the success of the randomised treatment, defined as resolution of acute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no recurrent appendicitis during one-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints include post-intervention complications, late recurrence of acute appendicitis after one year, duration of hospital stay, pain, quality of life, sick leave and treatment costs. Primary endpoint will be evaluated in two stages: point estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) will be calculated for both groups and proportion difference between groups with 95% CI will be calculated and evaluated based on 6 percentage point non-inferiority margin. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, APPAC II trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing per oral antibiotic monotherapy with intravenous antibiotic therapy continued by per oral antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The APPAC II trial aims to add clinical evidence on the debated role of antibiotics as the first-line treatment for a CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis as well as to optimise the non-operative treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03236961, retrospectively registered on the 2nd of August 2017.

Economic evaluation of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis from the APPAC randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: An increasing amount of evidence supports antibiotic therapy for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The objective of this study was to compare the costs of antibiotics alone versus appendicectomy in treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis within the randomized controlled APPAC (APPendicitis ACuta) trial. METHODS: The APPAC multicentre, non-inferiority RCT was conducted on patients with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients were assigned randomly to appendicectomy or antibiotic treatment. All costs were recorded, whether generated by the initial visit and subsequent treatment or possible recurrent appendicitis during the 1-year follow-up. The cost estimates were based on cost levels for the year 2012. RESULTS: Some 273 patients were assigned to the appendicectomy group and 257 to antibiotic treatment. Most patients randomized to antibiotic treatment did not require appendicectomy during the 1-year follow-up. In the operative group, overall societal costs (€5989·2, 95 per cent c.i. 5787·3 to 6191·1) were 1·6 times higher (€2244·8, 1940·5 to 2549·1) than those in the antibiotic group (€3744·4, 3514·6 to 3974·2). In both groups, productivity losses represented a slightly higher proportion of overall societal costs than all treatment costs together, with diagnostics and medicines having a minor role. Those in the operative group were prescribed significantly more sick leave than those in the antibiotic group (mean(s.d.) 17·0(8·3) (95 per cent c.i. 16·0 to 18·0) versus 9·2(6·9) (8·3 to 10·0) days respectively; P < 0·001). When the age and sex of the patient as well as the hospital were controlled for simultaneously, the operative treatment generated significantly more costs in all models. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis incurred lower costs than those who had surgery.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare robot-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy procedures for posterior compartment procidentia in terms of restoration of the anatomy using magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. METHOD: Sixteen female patients (four with total prolapse, twelve with intussusception) underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and 14 female patients (two with prolapse, twelve with intussusception) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Primary outcome measures were perioperative parameters, complications and restoration of anatomy as assessed by MR defaecography, which was performed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: Patient demographics, operation length, operating theatre times and length of in-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The anatomical defects of rectal prolapse, intussusception and rectocele and enterocele were similarly corrected after rectopexy in either technique as confirmed with dynamic MR defaecography. A slight residual intussusception was observed in three patients with primary total prolapse (two RVMR vs one LVMR) and in one patient with primary intussusception (RVMR) (P = 0.60). Rectocele was reduced from a mean of 33.0 ± 14.9 mm to 5.5 ± 8.4 mm after RVMR (P < 0.001) and from 24.7 ± 17.5 mm to 7.2 ± 3.2 mm after LVMR (P < 0.001) (RVMR vs LVMR, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can be performed safely and within the same operative time as conventional laparoscopy. Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy allows good anatomical correction as assessed by MR defaecography, with no differences between the techniques.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in male patients with external rectal prolapse is associated with a high reoperation rate.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has been used to treat male patients with external rectal prolapse, but evidence to support this approach is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of this new abdominal rectopexy surgical technique in men. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study. Adult male patients who were operated on for external rectal prolapse using ventral rectopexy in five tertiary hospitals in Finland between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. Patient demographics, detailed operative, postoperative and short-term follow-up data were collected from patient registers in participating hospitals. A questionnaire and informed consent form was sent to all patients. The questionnaire included scores for anal incontinence, obstructed defecation syndrome, urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction. The main outcome measure was the incidence of recurrent rectal prolapse. Surgical morbidity, the need for surgical repair due to recurrent symptoms and functional outcomes were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 52 adult male patients with symptoms caused by external rectal prolapse underwent ventral rectopexy. The questionnaire response rate was 64.4 %. Baseline clinical characteristics and perioperative results were similar in the responder and non-responder groups. A total of 9 (17.3 %) patients faced complications. There were two (3.8 %) serious surgical complications during the 30-day period after surgery that necessitated reoperation. None of the complications were mesh related. Recurrence of the prolapse was noticed in nine patients (17 %), and postoperative mucosal anal prolapse symptoms persisted in 11 patients (21 %). As a result, the reoperation rate was high. Altogether, 17 patients (33 %) underwent reoperation during the follow-up period due to postoperative complications or recurrent rectal or mucosal prolapse. According to the postoperative questionnaire data, patients under 40 had good functional results in terms of anal continence, defecation, urinary functions and sexual activity. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a safe surgical procedure in male patients with external prolapse. However, a high overall reoperation rate was noticed due to recurrent rectal and residual mucosal prolapse. This suggests that the ventral rectopexy technique should be modified or combined with other abdominal or perineal methods when treating male rectal prolapse patients.

Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has been proven to be safe and effective in the treatment of rectal prolapse or intussusception. Robotic-assisted surgery may offer potential benefits to this operation. This study describes the comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in terms of clinical parameters, operative details, postoperative complications and short-term outcomes. METHODS: Twenty patients operated on for rectal prolapse or intussusception using the Da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale CA, USA) were prospectively followed for 3 months. The cases were pair-matched with laparoscopically operated controls from registry files. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 159 min (standard deviation; ±37 SD) and 153 min (±33 SD) and mean total time in the operating theatre 231 min (±39 SD) and 234 min (±41 SD) for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic operations, respectively. Mean blood loss was 25 ml (±49 SD) in robotic-assisted and 37 ml (±50 SD) in laparoscopic procedures. There was one (5 %) significant complication in each group. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.1 (±2 SD) and 3.3 (±1.3 SD) days for the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The subjective benefit rate was the same in both groups: 16/20 (80 %). One patient in the robotic-assisted group continued to have symptoms of obstructed defecation, and there was one recurrence of prolapse in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe, feasible and not more time consuming than the laparoscopic technique even at the beginning of the learning curve. The short-term results are comparable with those of laparoscopy. We found no arguments to support the routine use of robotic assistance in rectopexy operations.

Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a 5-10-year follow-up of the randomized controlled multicenter study.

PURPOSE: In this long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized, and multicenter study, we compare the results of a group receiving laparoscopic incisional ventral hernia repair using intraperitoneal onlay mesh (LG) to a group receiving a hybrid hernia repair where open closure of fascial defect was added to intraperitoneal mesh placement (HG). METHODS: Originally, 193 patients with 2-7 cm incisional hernias were randomly assigned to either the LG or HG during the 30-month recruitment period in 2012 to 2015. Long-term follow-up was conducted 5-10 years after surgery to evaluate hernia recurrence rate and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: In all, 65 patients in the LG and 60 in the HG completed the long-term follow-up with a median follow-up period of 87 months. Recurrent hernia was detected in 11 of 65 patients (16.9%) in the LG and 10 of 60 patients (16.7%) in the HG (p > 0.9). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a recurrence rate approaching 20% in both groups, with similar curves. Three patients in the LG (4.6% and five patients in the HG (8.1%) had undergone re-operation due to recurrence (p = 0.48). There was no difference in patient-reported QoL measured using the SF-36 questionnaire. Mean pain scores were similar between groups, mean numeric rating scale (NRS) 0 to 10 being 1.1 in the LG and 0.7 in the HG (p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Fascial closure did not reduce hernia recurrence rate in this study population, even though it has been shown to be beneficial and recommended in surgery guidelines. In the long term, recurrence rate for both groups is similar.

Effects of 10 weeks of military training on neuromuscular function in non-overreached and overreached conscripts.

The purpose of the study was to examine how military training influences neuromuscular function in non-overreached and overreached conscripts. A total of 24 male conscripts participated in the study (8 weeks basic training + 2 weeks specialized training). All measurements were conducted during weeks 1, 5, 8 and 10. After the training period, non-overreached (NOR, n = 16) and overreached (OR, n = 8) groups were compared. Isometric maximal forces (bench press, elbow flexion and knee extension), single twitch (plantar flexors), H-reflex, M-wave (Hmax/Mmax) and V-wave (V/Mmax) (soleus) were measured. In knee extension, force production increased in NOR by 22.5 ±â€¯20.5% (p < 0.01) between weeks 1 and 8, which was not observed in OR (-1.1 ±â€¯18.2%, p > 0.05). In OR, plantarflexion twitch contraction time increased between weeks 5 and 10 by 82.2 ±â€¯34.4% (p < 0.01), which was not observed in NOR. No changes were observed in the H-reflex and V-wave responses in either of the groups. In conclusion, short term overreaching can also reduce the performance of the neuromuscular system, however, it seems to be more muscle than neural based. To avoid overreaching, more individualized periodization should be used during basic training. To enhance neuromuscular performance, maximal and explosive strength training should also be added into the basic training program.

Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a prospective randomized multicenter study of 1-month follow-up results.

PURPOSE: The seroma rate following laparoscopic incisional ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is up to 78%. LIVHR is connected to a relatively rare but dangerous complication, enterotomy, especially in cases with complex adhesiolysis. Closure of the fascial defect and extirpation of the hernia sack may reduce the risk of seromas and other hernia-site events. Our aim was to evaluate whether hybrid operation has a lower rate of the early complications compared to the standard LIVHR. METHODS: This is a multicenter randomized-controlled clinical trial. From November 2012 to May 2015, 193 patients undergoing LIVHR for primary incisional hernia with fascial defect size from 2 to 7 cm were recruited in 11 Finnish hospitals. Patients were randomized to either a laparoscopic (LG) or to a hybrid (HG) repair group. The outcome measures were the incidence of clinically and radiologically detected seromas and their extent 1 month after surgery, peri/postoperative complications, and pain. RESULTS: Bulging was observed by clinical evaluation in 46 (49%) LG patients and in 27 (31%) HG patients (p = 0.022). Ultrasound examination detected more seromas (67 vs. 45%, p = 0.004) and larger seromas (471 vs. 112 cm3, p = 0.025) after LG than after HG. In LG, there were 5 (5.3%) enterotomies compared to 1 (1.1%) in HG (p = 0.108). Adhesiolysis was more complex in LG than in HG (26.6 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.028). Patients in HG had higher pain scores on the first postoperative day (VAS 5.2 vs. 4.3, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Closure of the fascial defect and extirpation of the hernia sack reduce seroma formation. In hybrid operations, the risk of enterotomy seems to be lower than in laparoscopic repair, which should be considered in cases with complex adhesions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02542085.

The Accuracy of the Computed Tomography Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: Does the Experience of the Radiologist Matter?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess the accuracy of computed tomography in diagnosing acute appendicitis with a special reference to radiologist experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were collected prospectively in our randomized controlled trial comparing surgery and antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis (APPAC trial, NCT01022567). We evaluated 1065 patients who underwent computed tomography for suspected appendicitis. The on-call radiologist preoperatively analyzed these computed tomography images. In this study, the radiologists were divided into experienced (consultants) and inexperienced (residents) ones, and the comparison of interpretations was made between these two radiologist groups. RESULTS: Out of the 1065 patients, 714 had acute appendicitis and 351 had other or no diagnosis on computed tomography. There were 700 true-positive, 327 true-negative, 14 false-positive, and 24 false-negative cases. The sensitivity and the specificity of computed tomography were 96.7% (95% confidence interval, 95.1-97.8) and 95.9% (95% confidence interval, 93.2-97.5), respectively. The rate of false computed tomography diagnosis was 4.2% for experienced consultant radiologists and 2.2% for inexperienced resident radiologists (p = 0.071). Thus, the experience of the radiologist had no effect on the accuracy of computed tomography diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of computed tomography in diagnosing acute appendicitis was high. The experience of the radiologist did not improve the diagnostic accuracy. The results emphasize the role of computed tomography as an accurate modality in daily routine diagnostics for acute appendicitis in all clinical emergency settings.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project. METHODS: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants. RESULTS: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

The quality of life of gastroesophageal reflux disease patients waiting for an antireflux operation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this trial was to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients waiting for an antireflux operation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients waiting for a laparoscopic fundoplication were sent questionnaires measuring their symptoms and quality of life. RESULTS: Ninety-five of the patients still needing an operation returned the questionaires and were included in the analysis. Thirty-one of 84 patients (37%) felt that the symptoms had worsened, and 51/90 (57%) were unsatisfied. Thirty percent suffered from throat or airway infections, 25% from swallowing difficulties, 48% from retrosternal pain, and 18% had asthma. The mean GERD HRQL score (0-45) was 21.7 (95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.7). Short Form-36 scores of this population were significantly worse when compared to patients with inguinal hernia or moderate asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Patients waiting for a fundoplication seem to have a significantly decreased health-related quality of life due to poor symptom control regardless of continuous medical treatment.

Accuracy of hand-held Doppler in planning the operation for primary varicose veins.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hand-held Doppler (HHD) examination is an adequate screening test in planning surgical treatment for primary varicose vein. DESIGN: Prospective study. MATERIALS: One hundred and eleven consecutive patients (142 legs) with primary, uncomplicated varicose veins. METHODS: Legs were examined clinically, with HHD and duplex ultrasonography on the same day at the outpatient clinic. The plan for the subsequent treatment was recorded separately after each examination. RESULTS: At the sapheno-femoral junction and at the sapheno-popliteal junction, the sensitivity was 56 and 23%, the specificity 97 and 96%, the positive predictive values was 98 and 43%, the negative predictive value was 44 and 91%, and the Kappa coefficient was 38 and 24%, respectively. Clinical examination failed to correctly plan the treatment in 21 (26%) of 80 proposed operations. In 13 limbs (9.1%) the HHD-based treatment plan was modified on the basis of duplex ultrasound findings. In seven cases, patients would have undergone only stab avulsion procedure, whereas stripping of a saphenous vein was indicated on the basis of duplex ultrasound findings. In two other cases, HHD findings would have led to resect the wrong saphenous vein. In six cases, the treatment was wrongly planned because of assessment problems during HHD examination at the popliteal fossa. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of HHD in the preoperative evaluation of primary, uncomplicated varicose veins is unsatisfactory. These results suggest that duplex ultrasonography should be considered as the preoperative diagnostic method of choice.