Camiel Rosman

A Step-up Approach or Open Necrosectomy for Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach. METHODS In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. RESULTS The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P=0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P=0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P=0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.)

Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Surgical resection is regarded as the only curative option for resectable oesophageal cancer, but pulmonary complications occurring in more than half of patients after open oesophagectomy are a great concern. We assessed whether minimally invasive oesophagectomy reduces morbidity compared with open oesophagectomy. METHODS We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at five study centres in three countries between June 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011. Patients aged 18-75 years with resectable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open transthoracic or minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, and investigators undertaking interventions, assessing outcomes, and analysing data, were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was pulmonary infection within the first 2 weeks after surgery and during the whole stay in hospital. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 56 patients to the open oesophagectomy group and 59 to the minimally invasive oesophagectomy group. 16 (29%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in the first 2 weeks compared with five (9%) in the minimally invasive group (relative risk [RR] 0·30, 95% CI 0·12-0·76; p=0·005). 19 (34%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in-hospital compared with seven (12%) in the minimally invasive group (0·35, 0·16-0·78; p=0·005). For in-hospital mortality, one patient in the open oesophagectomy group died from anastomotic leakage and two in the minimally invasive group from aspiration and mediastinitis after anastomotic leakage. INTERPRETATION These findings provide evidence for the short-term benefits of minimally invasive oesophagectomy for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. FUNDING Digestive Surgery Foundation of the Unit of Digestive Surgery of the VU University Medical Centre.

A Conservative and Minimally Invasive Approach to Necrotizing Pancreatitis Improves Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome. RESULTS Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P<.001). A total of 208 patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs 64%, P=.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared with patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs 24%, P<.001) and mortality (20% vs 9%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome.

Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients

BackgroundAlthough the incidence of perforation after endoscopic procedures of the colon is low, the rising number of procedures could pose relevant health problems. Recognizing risk factors and optimizing treatment may reduce perforation incidence and the probability of (severe) complications. This study aimed to determine perforation frequency and the management of endoscopic colonoscopic perforation.MethodsA retrospective review of patient records was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforations after sigmoido/colonoscopy between 1990 and 2005. The patients’ demographic data, endoscopic procedural information, perforation location, therapy, and outcome were recorded.ResultsIn the 16-year period, 30,366 endoscopic colonic procedures were performed. In total, 35 colonic perforations occured (0.12%). All the patients underwent a laparotomy: for primary repair in 18 cases (56%), for resection with anastomosis in 8 cases (25%), and for resection without anastomosis in 6 cases (19%). In three patients (8.6%), no perforation was found. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in 21 cases (60%) and complicated in 14 cases (40%), including mortality for 3 patients (8.6% resulting from perforations and 0.01% resulting from total endoscopic colon procedures). The relative risk ratio of colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic procedures for perforations was 4. Therapeutic procedures show a delay in presentation and diagnosis compared with diagnostic procedures. Of the 35 perforations, 26 (74%) occurred in the sigmoid colon.ConclusionIatrogenic colonic perforation is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.12% was found. The perforation risk was higher for colonoscopic procedures than for sigmoidoscopic procedures. The sigmoid colon is the area at greatest risk for perforation. Immediate operative management, preferably primary repair and sometimes resection, appears to be a good strategy for most patients.

Repair of Giant Midline Abdominal Wall Hernias: “Components Separation Technique” versus Prosthetic Repair: Interim Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundReconstruction of giant midline abdominal wall hernias is difficult, and no data are available to decide which technique should be used. It was the aim of this study to compare the “components separation technique” (CST) versus prosthetic repair with e-PTFE patch (PR).MethodPatients with giant midline abdominal wall hernias were randomized for CST or PR. Patients underwent operation following standard procedures. Postoperative morbidity was scored on a standard form, and patients were followed for 36 months after operation for recurrent hernia.ResultsBetween November 1999 and June 2001, 39 patients were randomized for the study, 19 for CST and 18 for PR. Two patients were excluded perioperatively because of gross contamination of the operative field. No differences were found between the groups at baseline with respect to demographic details, co-morbidity, and size of the defect. There was no in-hospital mortality. Wound complications were found in 10 of 19 patients after CST and 13 of 18 patients after PR. Seroma was found more frequently after PR. In 7 of 18 patients after PR, the prosthesis had to be removed as a consequence of early or late infection. Reherniation occurred in 10 patients after CST and in 4 patients after PR.ConclusionsRepair of abdominal wall hernias with the component separation technique compares favorably with prosthetic repair. Although the reherniation rate after CST is relatively high, the consequences of wound healing disturbances in the presence of e-PTFE patch are far-reaching, often resulting in loss of the prosthesis.

Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial)

BackgroundThere is a rise in incidence of esophageal carcinoma due to increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma. Probably the only curative option to date is the use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. Traditional open esophageal resection is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Furthermore, this approach involves long intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay and long recovery period. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce the morbidity and accelerate the post-operative recovery.Methods/DesignComparison between traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a multi-center, randomized trial. Patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal junction tumors (Siewert I) are eligible for inclusion. Prior thoracic surgery and cervical esophageal carcinoma are indications for exclusion. The surgical technique involves a right thoracotomy with lung blockade and laparotomy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis for the traditional group. The minimally invasive procedure involves a right thoracoscopy in prone position with a single lumen tube and laparoscopy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis. All patients in both groups will undergo identical pre-operative and post-operative protocol. Primary endpoint of this study are post-operative respiratory complications within the first two post-operative weeks confirmed by clinical, radiological and sputum culture data. Secondary endpoints are the operative data, the post-operative data and oncological data such as quality of the specimen and survival. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to open procedure. Post-operative data include morbidity (major and minor), quality of life tests and hospital stay.Based on current literature and the experience of all participating centers, an incidence of pulmonary complications for 57% in the traditional arm and 29% in the minimally invasive arm, it is estimated that per arm 48 patients are needed. This is based on a two-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Knowing that approximately 20% of the patients will be excluded, we will randomize 60 patients per arm.DiscussionThe TIME-trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized study to define the role of minimally invasive esophageal resection in patients with resectable intrathoracic and junction esophageal cancer.Trial registration (Netherlands Trial Register)NTR2452

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

Pain after Open Preperitoneal Repair versus Lichtenstein Repair: A Randomized Trial

BackgroundThe open preperitoneal approach in inguinal hernia repair might have the benefit of a mesh in the preferred space without the disadvantages of an endoscopic procedure.MethodsA total of 172 patients with primary inguinal hernia were randomized to undergo the open preperitoneal Kugel or the standard open anterior Lichtenstein procedure in a teaching hospital. The main outcome measures were operating variables, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and consumed analgesics during the first 2 weeks postoperatively and at 3 months, neurological examination, and complications.ResultsIn the Lichtenstein group the operation took longer (54 min versus 41 min; p < .001). There were no clinically important differences in VAS pain score or number of analgesics during the first 2 weeks postoperatively. In the Kugel group the mean VAS pain score at 3 months was less (0.3 versus 0.9; p = .002), as was the proportion of patients reporting pain (21 versus 40%; p = .007). Pain was merely described as neuropathic, especially in the Lichtenstein group. With the anterior repair significantly more nerves were encountered, numbness reported, and cutaneous sensory changes found with neurological examination (all p < .001).ConclusionsFor those surgeons preferring an open approach, the Kugel procedure is a feasible alternative for the standard Lichtenstein procedure and is associated with less chronic pain at three months. Most likely the neuropathic pain and numbness with the Lichtenstein technique are results of more nerves at risk with the anterior approach.

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundAfter an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods/DesignPONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs.DiscussionThe PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection: Three-year Follow-up of the Previously Reported Randomized Controlled Trial: the TIME Trial

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate 3-year survival following a randomized controlled trial comparing minimally invasive with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. Background: Research on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown faster postoperative recovery and a marked decrease in pulmonary complications. Debate is ongoing as to whether the procedure is equivalent to open resection regarding oncologic outcomes. The study is a follow-up study of the TIME-trial (traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy, a multicenter, randomized trial). Methods: Between June 2009 and March 2011, patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I), were randomized between open and MI esophagectomy with curative intent. Primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, lymph node yield, short-term morbidity, mortality, complications, radicality, local recurrence, and metastasis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. Both trial protocol and short-term results have been published previously. Results: One hundred fifteen patients were included from 5 European hospitals and randomly assigned to open (n = 56) or MI esophagectomy (n = 59). Combined overall 3-year survival was 40.4% (SD 7.7%) in the open group versus 50.5% (SD 8%) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.207). The hazard ratio (HR) is 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery. Disease-free 3-year survival was 35.9% (SD 6.8%) in the open versus 40.2% (SD 6.9%) in the MI group [HR 0.691 (0.389 to 1.239). Conclusions: The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy. These results, together with short-term results, further support the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer.