Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh in Laparoscopic and Open Ventral Hernia Repair (LAPSIS): Results of a Multinational, Randomized, Controlled, and Double-blind Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the approach (open or laparoscopic) and mesh type (synthetic or biological) in ventral hernias in a clean setting.Summary of Background Data: The level of evidence on the optimal surgical approach and type of mesh in ventral hernia repair is still low. METHODS: Patients with a ventral abdominal hernia (diameter 4-10 cm) were included in this double-blind randomized controlled trial across 17 hospitals in 10 European countries. According to a 2 × 2-factorial design, patients were allocated to 4 arms (open retromuscular or laparoscopic intraperitoneal, with synthetic or Surgisis Gold biological mesh). Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to mesh type used. Major postoperative complication rate (hernia recurrence, mesh infection, or reoperation) within 3 years after surgery, was the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between September 1st, 2005, and August 7th, 2009, 253 patients were randomized and 13 excluded. Six of 61 patients (9.8%) in the open synthetic mesh arm, 15 of 66 patients (22.7%) in the open biological mesh arm, 7 of 64 patients (10.9%) in the laparoscopic synthetic mesh arm and 17 of 62 patients (27.4%) in the laparoscopic biological mesh arm had a major complication. The use of biological mesh resulted in significantly more complications (P = 0.013), also after adjusting for hernia type, body mass index, and study site. The trial was prematurely stopped due to an unacceptable high recurrence rate in the biological mesh arms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Surgisis Gold biological mesh is not recommended for noncomplex ventral hernia repair. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN34532248).

Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. METHODS: We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). RESULTS: We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD - 4.78, 95% CI - 7.79 to - 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.

Development and validation of study filters for identifying controlled non-randomized studies in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE.

A retrospective analysis published by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in 2018 concluded that no filter for non-randomized studies (NRS) achieved sufficient sensitivity (≥92%), a precondition for comprehensive information retrieval. New NRS filters are therefore required, taking into account the challenges related to this study type. Our evaluation focused on the development of study filters for NRS with a control group ("controlled NRS"), as this study type allows the calculation of an effect size. In addition, we assumed that due to the more explicit search syntax, controlled NRS are easier to identify than non-controlled ones, potentially resulting in better performance measures of study filters for controlled NRS. Our aim was to develop study filters for identifying controlled NRS in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. We developed two new search filters that can assist clinicians and researchers in identifying controlled NRS in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. The reference set was based on 2110 publications in Medline extracted from 271 Cochrane reviews and on 4333 irrelevant references. The first filter maximizes sensitivity (92.42%; specificity 79.67%, precision 68.49%) and should be used when a comprehensive search is needed. The second filter maximizes specificity (92.06%; precision 82.98%, sensitivity 80.94%) and should be used when a more focused search is sufficient.

Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large German ethics committee. MATERIALS: From the consecutive sample of study applications between March 2010 and December 2013, we selected MD study applications requiring approval by an ethics committee and the competent federal authority. These included pre-market studies on devices that had not yet received a CE (Conformité Européenne) mark or had previously been CE marked for a different indication. Also included were post-CE studies requiring federal authority approval because the study entailed additional invasive or otherwise burdensome components. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Besides the design of the studies, we assessed the planned sample size, study duration and other aspects. RESULTS: 122 study applications were analysed: 98 (80%) concerned therapeutic rather than diagnostic devices and 84 (69%) were pre-market studies. The proportion of studies on class I, IIa, IIb and III devices was 10%, 15%, 28% and 39%, respectively. 10 studies (8%) investigated IVD MDs. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was planned in 70 (57%) of the 122 applications; studies with non-randomised control groups (n=23; 19%) or without controls (n=29; 24%) were less common. In the sub-group of pre-market studies on therapeutic devices, the proportion of RCTs was 66% (43/65). The median sample size was 120 participants or samples (IQR 53-229). The median study duration was 24 (14-38) months. 87 studies (71%) considered at least one patient-relevant outcome. 12 (17%) and 37 (53%) of the 70 RCTs applied a fully or partially blinded design, respectively. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of MD studies in Germany apply a randomised controlled design, thus contradicting the industry argument that RCTs on MDs are commonly infeasible.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.

ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY FOR KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: IMPACT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN GERMANY.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe how a negative reimbursement decision-based on the health technology assessment (HTA) report of a nondrug intervention-affects healthcare providers in Germany. METHODS: Knee arthroscopy was chosen as an example, because as of April 2016 this procedure is no longer reimbursed for osteoarthritis, but is still covered for other indications, including meniscal lesions. The exclusion followed an HTA report prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Here, we examine how the decision to revoke reimbursement for arthroscopy was perceived by the surgical community. Information was collected from official hospital statistics, the internet, and informal interviews with orthopedic surgeons. RESULTS: In 2015, a total of 37,920 arthroscopic procedures were performed for knee osteoarthritis in Germany. Several surgical societies were unhappy with the negative decision, which was issued as a directive in November 2015, and they challenged the decision-making process as well as the underlying scientific evidence. In March 2016, fifteen societies issued joint recommendations on how to differentiate osteoarthritis from other knee diseases and how to document other diseases in a way that inspections by representatives of health insurance funds would not detect any deficiencies. In informal interviews, orthopedic surgeons indicated that miscoding of the principal diagnosis (meniscal tear rather than knee osteoarthritis) is to be expected, especially in the hospital sector. CONCLUSIONS: HTA can have a significant impact on the provision of health services, but various loopholes allow physicians to undermine policy decisions. Therefore, it is important to involve all stakeholders in HTA and to convince them of the benefits of evidence-based medicine.

The Range and Scientific Value of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard of scientific evidence for the attribution of clinical effects (benefits and harms) to medical interventions. Many different designs for RCTs have been developed in order to counter legitimate critical objections and to better adapt the trials to the continually changing challenges that face clinical research. METHODS: The diversity and adaptability of randomized trial designs are presented and discussed on the basis of a selective literature review and specific illustrative examples. RESULTS: A wide range of RCT designs enables adaptation to special research tasks and clinical framework conditions. These include (among others) crossover trials, n=1 trials, factorial RCT designs, and cluster-randomized trials. In addition, adaptive designs such as modern platform trials and pragmatic RCTs with simplified clinical questions and less severely restricted patient groups make broad recruitment of patients possible even in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Only the randomized allocation of subjects to the treatment and control groups, which is the defining property of RCTs, can adequately ensure that traits of the subjects which might disturb or bias a comparison of two or more medical interventions, will be evenly distributed across groups, regardless of whether these traits are known or unknown. The methodological variants and further elaborations of the RCT that are discussed here will help protect patients by enabling the assessment of the benefits and harms of medical methods and products on the basis of robust evidence even in the present era of rapid innovation.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed. METHODS: Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency. RESULTS: We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients. CONCLUSION: The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Randomized, controlled, two-arm, interventional, multicenter study on risk-adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple-trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Long bone fractures, particularly of the femur, are common in multiple-trauma patients, but their optimal management has not yet been determined. Although a trend exists toward the concept of "damage control orthopedics" (DCO), current literature is inconclusive. Thus, a need exists for a more specific controlled clinical study. The primary objective of this study was to clarify whether a risk-adapted procedure for treating femoral fractures, as opposed to an early definitive treatment strategy, leads to an improved outcome (morbidity and mortality). METHODS/DESIGN: The study was designed as a randomized controlled multicenter study. Multiple-trauma patients with femur shaft fractures and a calculated probability of death of 20 to 60 % were randomized to either temporary fracture fixation with external fixation and defined secondary definitive treatment (DCO) or primary reamed nailing (early total care). The primary objective was to reduce the extent of organ failure as measured by the maximum sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were randomized to two groups of 17 patients each. Both groups were comparable regarding sex, age, injury severity score, Glasgow Coma Scale, prothrombin time, base excess, calculated probability of death, and other physiologic variables. The maximum SOFA score was comparable (nonsignificant) between the groups. Regarding the secondary endpoints, the patients with external fixation required a significantly longer ventilation period (p = 0.049) and stayed on the intensive care significantly longer (p = 0.037), whereas the in-hospital length of stay was balanced for both groups. Unfortunately, the study had to be terminated prior to reaching the anticipated sample size because of unexpected low patient recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, the results of this randomized study reflect the ambivalence in the literature. No advantage of the damage control concept could be detected in the treatment of femur fractures in multiple-trauma patients. The necessity for scientific evaluation of this clinically relevant question remains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10321620 Date assigned: 9 February 2007.

Approaches to assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices for application in surgery.

BACKGROUND: The surgical community and the medical device industry enjoy a fruitful cooperation for the benefit of patients, but during the last years several high-risk products have led to problems and scandals, thus highlighting the need for reforms in European CE marking requirements. In October 2013, the European Parliament voted on a draft regulation on medical devices that intends to replace the current directives in 2014. PURPOSE: This article offers guidance to surgeons on how to select and assess medical devices for clinical use. Examples include artificial sphincters, surgical meshes, as well as single-incision and robot-assisted surgery. It is important that surgeons have a basic understanding of the requirements for CE marking of new medical devices. Because device performance rather than effectiveness is required for European market entry, surgeons (and their patients) are often left with the burden of using potentially harmful devices. In addition, potential problems concerning the safety or effectiveness of approved devices are concealed by the lack of data transparency. Because regulatory reforms were blocked at the European level, many member states will now seek other ways of restricting the use of medical devices with unknown effectiveness. One interesting model in this regard is to link the reimbursement of new medical devices to the conduct of clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should develop a structured multidisciplinary approach to innovation management in their hospitals before using a new high-risk device. The key question is how to strike the right balance between innovation and safety.

Tamponade dressings may be unnecessary after haemorrhoidectomy: a randomised controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Bleeding after haemorrhoidectomy is common. Many surgical textbooks recommend insertion of an anal tampon in order to reduce postoperative bleeding. This practice, however, is bothersome and probably painful for patients. The effect of using a tamponade has not been validated in randomised controlled trials. METHODS: The study included 100 patients who were scheduled for Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. During surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive an anal tampon at the end of the procedure. Data on pain, complications and wound care were collected. The trial was registered (DRKS00003116) and all analyses were by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: There were 48 patients in the group with tamponade, and 52 patients were left without tamponade. The trial's primary outcome and maximum pain intensity, averaged 6.1 and 4.2 in the two groups (P = 0.001). In the group with tamponade, a complication was recorded in seven patients (15 %), which was similar to the group without tamponade (21 %). Severe anal bleeding occurred in two and five patients, respectively. Bandage changes were less necessary often in the group treated without tamponade (P = 0.013). Hospital stay was 4 days in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate that insertion of an anal tampon after haemorrhoidectomy does not reduce postoperative bleeding but causes significantly more pain. After haemorrhoidectomy, anal tampons should not be used routinely but may be considered when specific indications justify its use.

Efficacy and safety of sclerotherapy with polidocanol foam in comparison with fluid sclerosant in the treatment of first-grade haemorrhoidal disease: a randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre trial.

PURPOSE: Sclerotherapy is the treatment of choice for first-grade haemorrhoidal disease. Numerous studies have shown that sclerotherapy with foamed sclerosants is more efficacious than liquid in the treatment of varicose veins. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of polidocanol foam in comparison with liquid for haemorrhoidal disease. METHODS: A total of 130 patients were randomised to foam or liquid sclerotherapy (polidocanol 3%). Patients with first-grade haemorrhoidal disease were included and blinded to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the stopping of perianal bleeding after one sclerotherapy session. Sclerotherapy was repeated until patients were free of bleeding (2-week intervals). The final follow-up was 12 weeks after the last sclerotherapy session. RESULTS: In the foam group, significantly more patients (88%) were treated successfully after one sclerotherapy session compared to the liquid group (69%; p = 0.01). There was high patient satisfaction in both groups, but significantly more patients were satisfied with their treatment in the foam group than in the liquid group (99 vs. 84%; p = 0.009). Additionally, in the foam group, significantly less treatment sessions were required (p < 0.001), and the total amount of injected polidocanol was reduced (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the therapy of first-grade haemorrhoidal disease, polidocanol 3 % foam is more effective and equally safe compared to liquid polidocanol. The results of this trial show that foam sclerotherapy is a new, innovative, effective and safe non-surgical treatment option for haemorrhoidal disease.