Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy-a propensity score-matched analysis from the German StuDoQ|Pancreas registry.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess intraoperative, postoperative, and oncologic outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. METHODS: Data from patients undergoing distal pancreatic resection were extracted from the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery. After propensity score case matching, groups of LDP and ODP were compared regarding demography, comorbidities, operative details, histopathology, and perioperative outcome. RESULTS: At the time of data extraction, the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry included over 3000 pancreatic resections from over 50 surgical departments in Germany. Data from 353 patients undergoing ODP (n = 254) or LDP (n = 99) from September 2013 to February 2016 at 29 institutions were included in the analysis. Baseline data showed a strong selection bias in LDP patients, which disappeared after 1:1 propensity score matching. A comparison of the matched groups disclosed a significantly longer operation time, higher rate of spleen preservation, more grade A pancreatic fistula, shorter hospital stay, and increased readmissions for LDP. In the small group of patients operated for pancreatic cancer, a lower lymph node yield with a lower lymph node ratio was apparent in LDP. CONCLUSIONS: LDP needed more time but potential advantages include increased spleen preservation and shorter hospital stay, as well as a trend for less transfusion, ventilation, and mortality. LDP for pancreatic cancer was performed rarely and will need critical evaluation in the future. Data from a prospective randomized registry trial is needed to confirm these results.

Multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial of standard abdominal wound edge protection with surgical dressings versus coverage with a sterile circular polyethylene drape for prevention of surgical site infections: a CHIR-Net trial (BaFO; NCT01181206).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether circular plastic wound edge protectors (CWEPs) significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in comparison to standard surgical towels in patients undergoing laparotomy. BACKGROUND: SSIs cause substantial morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and costs and remain one of the most frequent surgical complications. CWEPs have been proposed as a measure to reduce the incidence of SSIs. METHODS: In this randomized controlled, multicenter, 2-arm, parallel-group design, patient- and observer-blinded trial patients undergoing open elective abdominal surgery were assigned to either intraoperative wound coverage with a CWEP or standard coverage with surgical towels. Primary endpoint was superiority of intervention over control in terms of the incidence of SSIs within a 30-day postoperative period. RESULTS: Between September 2010 and November 2012, 608 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomized at 16 centers across Germany. Three patients in the device group and 11 patients in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Patients' and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. Forty-eight patients discontinued the study prematurely, mainly because of relaparotomy (control, n=9; intervention, n=9) and death (control, n=4; intervention, n=7). A total of 79 patients experienced SSIs within 30 days of surgery, 27 of 274 (9.9%) in the device group and 52 of 272 (19.1%) in the control group (odds ratio=0.462, 95% confidence interval: 0.281-0.762; P=0.002). Subgroup analyses indicate that the effect could be more pronounced in colorectal surgery, and in clean-contaminated/contaminated surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that CWEPs are effective at reducing the incidence of SSIs in elective and clean or clean-contaminated open abdominal surgery.