Practice variation in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Practice variation exists in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, but little is known about the potential causes and consequences as large studies are lacking. This study explores the potential causes and consequences of practice variation in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centers from 2013 through 2017. RESULTS: Among 1,311 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 351 (27%) had a venous resection, and the overall median annual center volume of venous resection was 4. No association was found between the center volume of pancreatoduodenectomy and the rate of venous resections, nor between patient and tumor characteristics and the rate of venous resections per center. Female sex, lower body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, venous involvement, and stenosis on imaging were predictive for venous resection. Adjusted for these factors, 3 centers performed significantly more, and 3 centers performed significantly fewer venous resections than expected. In patients with venous resection, significantly less major morbidity (22% vs 38%) and longer overall survival (median 16 vs 12 months) were observed in centers with an above-median annual volume of venous resections (>4). CONCLUSION: Patient and tumor characteristics did not explain significant practice variation between centers in the Netherlands in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The clinical outcomes of venous resection might be related to the volume of the procedure.

Venous wedge and segment resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: impact on short- and long-term outcomes in a nationwide cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.

Perineal wound closure using gluteal turnover flap or primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (BIOPEX-2 study).

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function. DISCUSSION: The uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.

The inflammatory response after laparoscopic and open pancreatoduodenectomy and the association with complications in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The systemic inflammatory response seen after surgery seems to be related to postoperative complications. A reduction of the inflammatory response through minimally invasive surgery might therefore be the mechanism via which postoperative outcome could be improved. The aim of this study was to investigate if postoperative inflammatory markers differed between laparoscopic (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and if there was a relationship between inflammatory markers and the occurrence of postoperative complications. METHODS: A side study of the multicenter randomized controlled LEOPARD-2 trial comparing LPD to OPD was performed. Area under the curve (AUC) for plasma inflammatory markers, including interleukin (IL-) 6, IL-8 and C reactive protein (CRP) levels, were determined during the first 96 postoperative hours and compared between LPD and OPD, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, and postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade B/C. RESULTS: Overall, 38 patients were included (18 LPD and 20 OPD). The median AUC of IL-6 was 627 (195-1378) after LPD vs. 338 (175-694)pg/mL after OPD, (p = 0.114). The AUC of IL-8 and CRP were comparable. IL-6 levels were higher in patients with a Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication (634[309-1489] vs. 297 [171-680], p = 0.034) and POPF grade B/C (994 [534-3265] vs. 334 [173-704], p = 0.003). In patients with a POPF grade B/C, IL-6 levels tended to be higher after LPD, as compared to OPD (3533[IQR 1133-3533] vs. 715[IQR 39-1658], p = 0.053). CONCLUSION: LPD, as compared to OPD, did not reduce the postoperative inflammatory response. IL-6 levels were associated with postoperative complications and pancreatic fistula.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy may improve postoperative recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy. However, there are concerns that the extensive learning curve of this complex procedure could increase the risk of complications. We aimed to assess whether laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy could reduce time to functional recovery compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This multicentre, patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial was performed in four centres in the Netherlands that each do 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually; surgeons had to have completed a dedicated training programme for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and have done 20 or more laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies before trial participation. Patients with a benign, premalignant, or malignant indication for pancreatoduodenectomy, without signs of vascular involvement, were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy using a central web-based system. Randomisation was stratified for annual case volume and preoperative estimated risk of pancreatic fistula. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The main objective of the phase 2 part of the trial was to assess the safety of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (complications and mortality), and the primary outcome of phase 3 was time to functional recovery in days, defined as all of the following: adequate pain control with only oral analgesia; independent mobility; ability to maintain more than 50% of the daily required caloric intake; no need for intravenous fluid administration; and no signs of infection (temperature <38·5°C). This trial is registered with Trialregister.nl, number NTR5689. FINDINGS: Between May 13 and Dec 20, 2016, 42 patients were randomised in the phase 2 part of the trial. Two patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. Three (15%) of 20 patients died within 90 days after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, compared with none of 20 patients after open pancreatoduodenectomy. Based on safety data from the phase 2 part of the trial, the data and safety monitoring board and protocol committee agreed to proceed with phase 3. Between Jan 31 and Nov 14, 2017, 63 additional patients were randomised in phase 3 of the trial. Four patients did not receive surgery and were excluded from analyses in accordance with the study protocol. After randomisation of 105 patients (combining patients from both phase 2 and phase 3), of whom 99 underwent surgery, the trial was prematurely terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of a difference in 90-day complication-related mortality (five [10%] of 50 patients in the laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy group vs one [2%] of 49 in the open pancreatoduodenectomy group; risk ratio [RR] 4·90 [95% CI 0·59-40·44]; p=0·20). Median time to functional recovery was 10 days (95% CI 5-15) after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus 8 days (95% CI 7-9) after open pancreatoduodenectomy (log-rank p=0·80). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications (25 [50%] of 50 patients after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy vs 19 [39%] of 49 after open pancreatoduodenectomy; RR 1·29 [95% CI 0·82-2·02]; p=0·26) and grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistulas (14 [28%] vs 12 [24%]; RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·59-2·22]; p=0·69) were comparable between groups. INTERPRETATION: Although not statistically significant, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with more complication-related deaths than was open pancreatoduodenectomy, and there was no difference between groups in time to functional recovery. These safety concerns were unexpected and worrisome, especially in the setting of trained surgeons working in centres performing 20 or more pancreatoduodenectomies annually. Experience, learning curve, and annual volume might have influenced the outcomes; future research should focus on these issues. FUNDING: Grant for investigator-initiated studies by Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited.

Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-2).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess feasibility and outcomes of a multicenter training program in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). BACKGROUND: Whereas expert centers have reported promising outcomes of LPD, nationwide analyses have raised concerns on its safety, especially during the learning curve. Multicenter, structured LPD training programs reporting outcomes including the first procedures are lacking. No LPD had been performed in the Netherlands before this study. METHODS: During 2014-2016, 8 surgeons from 4 high-volume centers completed the Longitudinal Assessment and Realization of Laparoscopic Pancreatic Surgery (LAELAPS-2) training program in LPD, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring. In all centers, LPD was performed by 2 surgeons with extensive experience in pancreatic and laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes of all LPDs were prospectively collected. RESULTS: In total, 114 patients underwent LPD. Median pancreatic duct diameter was 3 mm [interquartile range (IQR = 2-4)] and pancreatic texture was soft in 74% of patients. The conversion rate was 11% (n = 12), median blood loss 350 mL (IQR = 200-700), and operative time 375 minutes (IQR = 320-431). Grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 34% of patients, requiring catheter drainage in 22% and re-operation in 2%. A Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complication occurred in 43% of patients. Median length of hospital stay was 15 days (IQR = 9-25). Overall, 30-day and 90-day mortality were both 3.5%. Outcomes were similar for the first and second part of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This LPD training program was feasible and ensured acceptable outcomes during the learning curve in all centers. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings and assess the added value of LPD.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Approach for Right-Sided Colectomy: A Study in 12,006 Patients from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate whether laparoscopic right colectomy is superior to open surgery. The purpose of this study was to address this issue and arrive at a consensus using data from a national database. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective open or laparoscopic right colectomy for colorectal cancer during the period 2009-2013 were identified from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Complications that occurred within 30 days after surgery and 30-day mortality rates were calculated and compared between open and laparoscopic resection. RESULTS: In total, 12,006 patients underwent elective open or laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colorectal cancer. Of these, 6,683 (55.7%) underwent open resection and 5,323 (44.3%) underwent laparoscopic resection. Complications occurred within 30 days after surgery in the laparoscopic group in 26.1% of patients and in 32.1% of patients in the open group (p < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was also significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (2.2 vs. 3.6% p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this non-randomized, descriptive study conducted in the Netherlands, open right colectomy seems to have a higher risk for complications and mortality as compared to laparoscopic right colectomy, even after correction for confounding factors.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma.

AIM: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2-3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2-3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open or laparoscopic reconstruction during the learning curve: a multicenter propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPD-OR) has been suggested to lower the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula reported after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with laparoscopic reconstruction (LPD). Propensity score matched studies are, lacking. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective cohort study including patients from 7 Dutch centers between 2014-2018. Patients undergoing LPD-OR were matched LPD patients in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores. Main outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) grade B/C and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients were included, involving the first procedure for all centers. All 56 patients after LPD-OR could be matched to a patient undergoing LPD. With LPD-OR, the unplanned conversion rate was 21% vs. 9% with LPD (P < 0.001). Median blood loss (300 vs. 400 mL, P = 0.85), operative time (401 vs. 378 min, P = 0.62) and hospital stay (10 vs. 12 days, P = 0.31) were comparable for LPD-OR vs. LPD, as were Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (38% vs. 52%, P = 0.13), POPF grade B/C (23% vs. 21%, P = 0.82), and 90-day mortality (4% vs. 4%, P > 0.99). CONCLUSION: In this propensity matched cohort performed early in the learning curve, no benefit was found for LPD-OR, as compared to LPD.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Data from observational studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is superior to open pancreatoduodenectomy regarding intraoperative blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay, without increasing total costs. However, several case-matched studies failed to demonstrate superiority of MIPD, and large registry studies from the USA even suggested increased mortality for MIPDs performed in low-volume (<10 MIPDs annually) centers. Randomized controlled multicenter trials are lacking but clearly required. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIPD compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy, even in an enhanced recovery setting. METHODS/DESIGN: LEOPARD-2 is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, phase 2/3, superiority trial in centers that completed the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group LAELAPS-2 training program for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy or LAELAPS-3 training program for robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and have performed ≥ 20 MIPDs. A total of 136 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant, or malignant disease will be randomly assigned to undergo minimally invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. After the first 40 patients (phase 2), the data safety monitoring board will assess safety outcomes (not blinded for treatment allocation) and decide on continuation to phase 3. Patients from phase 2 will then be included in phase 3. The primary outcome measure is time (days) to functional recovery. All patients will be blinded for the surgical approach, at least until postoperative day 5, but preferably until functional recovery has been attained. Secondary outcome measures are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life, and costs. DISCUSSION: The LEOPARD-2 trial is designed to assess whether MIPD reduces time to functional recovery, as compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5689 . Registered on 2 March 2016.

Continuous wound infiltration versus epidural analgesia after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery (POP-UP): a randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is the international standard for pain treatment in abdominal surgery. Although some studies have advocated continuous wound infiltration with local anaesthetics, robust evidence is lacking, especially on patient-reported outcome measures. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of continuous wound infiltration in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. METHODS: In this randomised controlled, open label, non-inferiority trial (POP-UP), we enrolled adult patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery by subcostal or midline laparotomy in two Dutch hospitals. Patients were centrally randomised (1:1) to receive either pain treatment with continuous wound infiltration using bupivacaine plus patient-controlled analgesia with morphine or to receive (patient-controlled) epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and sufentanil. All patients were treated within an enhanced recovery setting. Randomisation was stratified by centre and type of incision. The primary outcome was the mean Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS) from day 1-5, a validated composite endpoint of pain scores, opioid side-effects, and patient satisfaction (range 0 [best] to 28 [worst]). Analysis was per-protocol. The non-inferiority limit of the mean difference was + 3·0. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, number NTR4948. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20, 2015, and Sept 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 105 eligible patients: 53 to receive continuous wound infiltration and 52 to receive epidural analgesia. One patient in the continuous wound infiltration group discontinued treatment, as did five in the epidural analgesia group; of these five patients, preoperative placement failed in three (these patients were treated with continuous wound infiltration instead), one patient refused an epidural, and data for the primary endpoint was lost for one. Thus, 55 patients were included in the continuous wound infiltration group and 47 in the epidural analgesia group for the per-protocol analyses. Mean OBAS was 3·8 (SD 2·4) in the continuous wound infiltration group versus 4·4 (2·2) in the epidural group (mean difference -0·62, 95% CI -1·54 to 0·30). Because the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI did not exceed +3·0, non-inferiority was shown. Four (7%) patients in the continuous wound infiltration group and five (11%) of those in the epidural group had an adverse event. One patient in the continuous wound infiltration group had a serious adverse event (temporary hypotension and arrhythmia after bolus injection); no serious adverse events were noted in the epidural group. INTERPRETATION: These data suggest that continuous wound infiltration is non-inferior to epidural analgesia in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery within an enhanced recovery setting. Further large-scale trials are required to make a definitive assessment of non-inferiority. FUNDING: Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Continuous wound infiltration or epidural analgesia for pain prevention after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery within an enhanced recovery program (POP-UP trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain prevention is essential for the recovery of surgical patients. Continuous (thoracic) epidural analgesia (CEA) is routinely practiced for major abdominal surgery, but evidence is conflicting on its benefits in this setting. Potential disadvantages of epidural analgesia are a) perioperative hypotension, frequently requiring additional intravenous fluid boluses or prolonged use of vasopressors; b) relatively high failure rates, with periods of inadequate analgesia; and c) the risk of rare but serious, at times persistent, neurologic complications (hematoma and abscess). In recent years, continuous (subfascial) wound infiltration (CWI) plus patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been suggested as a safe and reliable alternative, which does not have the previously mentioned disadvantages, but evidence from multicenter trials targeting a specific surgical population is lacking. We hypothesize that CWI+PCA is equally as effective as CEA, without the mentioned disadvantages. METHODS/DESIGN: POP-UP is a randomized controlled noninferiority multicenter trial, recruiting adult patients scheduled for elective hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery via laparotomy in an enhanced recovery setting. A total of 102 patients are being randomly allocated to CWI+PCA or (P)CEA. Our primary endpoint is the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS), a composite endpoint of pain intensity, opioid-related adverse effects and patient satisfaction, during postoperative days 1 to 5. Secondary endpoints include length of the hospital stay, number of patients with severe pain, and the use of rescue medication. DISCUSSION: POP-UP is a pragmatic trial that will provide evidence of whether CWI+PCA is noninferior as compared to (P)CEA after elective hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery via laparotomy in an enhanced recovery setting. If this hypothesis is confirmed, this finding could contribute to more widespread implementation of this technique, especially when the described disadvantages of epidural analgesia are less often observed with CWI+PCA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4948 (registry date 2 January 2015).

Long-term and perioperative corticosteroids in anastomotic leakage: a prospective study of 259 left-sided colorectal anastomoses.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal resection. DESIGN: Review of records of patients who participated in the Analysis of Predictive Parameters for Evident Anastomotic Leakage study. SETTING: Eight health centers. PATIENTS: Two hundred fifty-nine patients who underwent left-sided colorectal anastomoses. INTERVENTION: Corticosteroids taken as long-term medication for underlying disease or perioperatively for the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prospective evaluations for risk factors for symptomatic AL. RESULTS: In 23% of patients, a defunctioning stoma was constructed. The incidence of AL was 7.3%. The clinical course of patients with AL showed that in 21% of leaks, the drain indicated leakage; in the remaining patients, computed tomography or laparotomy resulted equally often in the detection of AL. In 50% of patients with AL, a Hartmann operation was needed. The incidence of AL was significantly higher in patients with pulmonary comorbidity (22.6% leakage), patients taking corticosteroids as longterm medication (50% leakage), and patients taking corticosteroids perioperatively (19% leakage). Perioperative corticosteroids were prescribed in 8% of patients for the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significantly increased incidence of AL in patients treated with long-term corticosteroids and perioperative corticosteroids for pulmonary comorbidity. Therefore, we recommend that in this patient category, anastomoses should be protected by a diverting stoma or a Hartmann procedure should be considered to avoid AL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1258

Quality improvement of pancreatic surgery by centralization in the western part of the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume hospitals is under debate in many countries. In the western part of the Netherlands, the professional network of surgical oncologists agreed to centralize all pancreatic surgery from 2006 in two high-volume hospitals. Our aim is to evaluate whether centralization of pancreatic surgery has improved clinical outcomes and has changed referral patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre West (CCCW) of all 249 patients who had a resection for suspected pancreatic cancer between 1996 and 2008 in the western part of the Netherlands were analyzed. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate survival for 3 time periods; 1996-2000, 2001-2005 (introduction of quality standards), and 2006-2008 (after centralization). In addition, the differences in referral pattern were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2006, all pancreatic surgery was centralized in 2 hospitals. The 2-year survival rate increased after centralization from 39% to 55% (P =.09) for all patients who had a pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer. After adjustment for age, tumor location, stage, histology, and adjuvant treatment, the latter period was significantly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.34-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery was successful and has resulted in improved clinical outcomes in the western part of the Netherlands, demonstrating the effectiveness of centralization.

Temporary end ileostomy with subcutaneously buried efferent limb: results and potential advantages.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of a modified technique of creating a defunctioning end ileostomy. METHODS: Medical records of all consecutive patients with a defunctioning end ileostomy with buried efferent limb operated at our hospital between January 2000 and December 2007 were reviewed. The defunctioning end ileostomy with buried efferent limb is created by closing the distal limb and positioning it in the subcutis. Parameters studied were: stomal and reversal related complications. RESULTS: 66 patients were included. Between construction and closure of the stoma, a total of 21 patients (31.8%) developed stoma-related complications. In 1 patient (1.5%) high output occurred, in 6 (9%) stomal retraction and in 4 (6.1%) a parastomal hernia occurred. Peristomal skin problems were observed in 14 patients (21.2%) in the early postoperative period, decreasing to 6 patients (9.1%) after 3 weeks. In 1 patient, stoma closure could not be performed through a local approach and formal laparotomy was necessary. Complications of loop ileostomy as reported in the literature show relatively high rates of peristomal skin and leakage problems. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that end ileostomy with subcutaneous buried efferent limb offers advantages over loop ileostomy with regard to the risk of developing peristomal skin and leakage problems.

DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative treatment. A multicenter randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses.Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management.We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used.The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years. DISCUSSION: Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year.Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Trial register number: NTR1478).

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.