Cornelis J. H. M. van Laarhoven

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.)

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.

Benefits and harms of adhesion barriers for abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Formation of adhesions after peritoneal surgery results in high morbidity. Barriers to prevent adhesion are seldom applied, despite their ability to reduce the severity of adhesion formation. We evaluated the benefits and harms of four adhesion barriers that have been approved for clinical use. METHODS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase for randomised clinical trials assessing use of oxidised regenerated cellulose, hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose, icodextrin, or polyethylene glycol in abdominal surgery. Two researchers independently identified reports and extracted data. We compared use of a barrier with no barrier for nine predefined outcomes, graded for clinical relevance. The primary outcome was reoperation for adhesive small bowel obstruction. We assessed systematic error, random error, and design error with the error matrix approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003321. FINDINGS Our search returned 1840 results, from which 28 trials (5191 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. The risks of systematic and random errors were low. No trials reported data for the effect of oxidised regenerated cellulose or polyethylene glycol on reoperations for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Oxidised regenerated cellulose reduced the incidence of adhesions (relative risk [RR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·31-0·86). Some evidence suggests that hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose reduces the incidence of reoperations for adhesive small bowel obstruction (RR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·88). For icodextrin, reoperation for adhesive small bowel obstruction did not differ significantly between groups (RR 0·33, 95% CI 0·03-3·11). No barriers were associated with an increase in serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Oxidised regenerated cellulose and hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose can safely reduce clinically relevant consequences of adhesions. FUNDING None.

Intestinal barrier dysfunction in a randomized trial of a specific probiotic composition in acute pancreatitis

Objectives:To determine the relation between intestinal barrier dysfunction, bacterial translocation, and clinical outcome in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis and the influence of probiotics on these processes. Summary of Background data:Randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial on probiotic prophylaxis (Ecologic 641) in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (PROPATRIA). Methods:Excretion of intestinal fatty acid binding protein (IFABP, a parameter for enterocyte damage), recovery of polyethylene glycols (PEGs, a parameter for intestinal permeability), and excretion of nitric oxide (NOx, a parameter for bacterial translocation) were assessed in urine of 141 patients collected 24 to 48 h after start of probiotic or placebo treatment and 7 days thereafter. Results:IFABP concentrations in the first 72 hours were higher in patients who developed bacteremia (P = 0.03), infected necrosis (P = 0.01), and organ failure (P = 0.008). PEG recovery was higher in patients who developed bacteremia (PEG 4000, P = 0.001), organ failure (PEG 4000, P < 0.0001), or died (PEG 4000, P = 0.009). Probiotic prophylaxis was associated with an increase in IFABP (median 362 vs. 199 pg/mL; P = 0.02), most evidently in patients with organ failure (P = 0.001), and did not influence intestinal permeability. Overall, probiotics decreased NOx (P = 0.05) but, in patients with organ failure, increased NOx (P = 0.001). Conclusions:Bacteremia, infected necrosis, organ failure, and mortality were all associated with intestinal barrier dysfunction early in the course of acute pancreatitis. Overall, prophylaxis with this specific combination of probiotic strains reduced bacterial translocation, but was associated with increased bacterial translocation and enterocyte damage in patients with organ failure.

Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence.

BackgroundClinical evidence continues to expand and is increasingly difficult to overview. We aimed at conceptualizing a visual assessment tool, i.e., a matrix for overviewing studies and their data in order to assess the clinical evidence at a glance.MethodsA four-step matrix was constructed using the three dimensions of systematic error, random error, and design error. Matrix step I ranks the identified studies according to the dimensions of systematic errors and random errors. Matrix step II orders the studies according to the design errors. Matrix step III assesses the three dimensions of errors in studies. Matrix step IV assesses the size and direction of the intervention effect.ResultsThe application of this four-step matrix is illustrated with two examples: peri-operative beta-blockade initialized in relation to surgery versus placebo for major non-cardiac surgery, and antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. When clinical evidence is deemed both internally and externally valid, the size of the intervention effect is to be assessed.ConclusionThe error matrix provides an overview of the validity of the available evidence at a glance, and may assist in deciding which interventions to use in clinical practice.

Prior Colorectal Neoplasia Is Associated With Increased Risk of Ileoanal Pouch Neoplasia in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS Although restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) substantially reduces the risk of colorectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), subsequent pouch neoplasia can develop. There are few data on the incidence of and risk factors for neoplasia, so there is no consensus on the need for pouch surveillance. We aimed to determine the cumulative incidence of pouch neoplasia in patients with IBD and identify risk factors for developing pouch neoplasia. METHODS We searched the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) to identify all patients with IBD and IPAA in The Netherlands from January 1991 to May 2012. We calculated the cumulative incidence of pouch neoplasia and performed a case-control study to identify risk factors. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS We identified 1200 patients with IBD and IPAA; 25 (1.83%) developed pouch neoplasia, including 16 adenocarcinomas. Respective cumulative incidences at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.7%, and 6.9% for pouch neoplasia and 0.6%, 1.4%, 2.1%, and 3.3% for pouch carcinoma. A history of colorectal neoplasia was the only risk factor associated with pouch neoplasia. Hazard ratios were 3.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-10.19) for prior dysplasia and 24.69 (95% confidence interval, 9.61-63.42) for prior carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of pouch neoplasia in patients with IBD without a history of colorectal neoplasia is relatively low. Prior dysplasia or colon cancer is associated with an approximate 4- and 25-fold increase in risk, respectively, of developing pouch neoplasia.

Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy: Health status in a blind randomised trial

BackgroundGallstones are a major cause of morbidity, and cholecystectomy is a commonly performed procedure. Minimal invasive procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and small-incision cholecystectomy (SIC), have replaced the classical open cholecystectomy. No differences have been found in primary outcome measures between LC and SIC, therefore secondary outcome measures have to be considered to determine preferences. The aim of our study was to examine health status applying evidence-based guidelines in LC and SIC in a randomised trial.MethodsPatients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were included in a blind randomised trial. Operative procedures, anaesthesia, analgesics and postoperative care were standardised in order to limit bias. Questionnaires were filled in preoperatively, the first day postoperatively, and at outpatients follow-up at 2, 6 and 12 weeks. In accordance with evidence-based guidelines, the generic short form (SF-36) and the disease-specific gastrointestinal quality-of-life index (GIQLI) questionnaires were used in addition to the body image questionnaire (BIQ).ResultsA total of 257 patients were randomised between LC (120) and SIC (137). Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat (converted procedures included) and also distinguishing converted from minimal invasive (nonconverted) procedures. Questionnaires were obtained with a response rate varying from 87.5% preoperatively to 77.4% three months postoperatively. Except for two time-specific measurements in one SF-36 subscale, there were no differences between LC and SIC. There were significant differences in several subscales in all three questionnaires comparing minimal invasive versus converted procedures.ConclusionsApplying adequate methodological quality and evidence-based guidelines (by using SF-36 and GIQLI), there are no significant differences in health status between LC and SIC.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Small-Incision and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Cholecystolithiasis: Primary and Clinical Outcomes

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the primary and clinical outcomes in laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. DESIGN Blinded randomized single-center trial emphasizing methodologic quality and generalizability. SETTING General teaching hospital in the Netherlands. PATIENTS A total of 257 patients undergoing cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. INTERVENTIONS Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and small-incision cholecystectomy, performed mainly by surgical residents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Complications and symptom relief were primary outcome measures; conversion rate, operative time, and hospital stay were secondary outcome measures. Feasibility of performing both procedures by residents was evaluated as well. RESULTS In the 257 patients, surgical residents performed 105 laparoscopic and 118 small-incision cholecystectomies. There were no significant differences in complications, conversion rates, and hospital stay. Operative time was significantly shorter with the small-incision technique. CONCLUSIONS No differences in primary clinical outcome measures were found between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy in this randomized trial with emphasis on methodologic quality and generalizability. The gold standard status of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is questionable. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN67485658.

Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings

BackgroundAfter its introduction, laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly expanded around the world and was accepted the procedure of choice by consensus. However, analysis of evidence shows no difference regarding primary outcome measures between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. In absence of clear clinical benefit it may be interesting to focus on the resource use associated with the available techniques, a secondary outcome measure. This study focuses on a difference in costs between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy from a societal perspective with emphasis on internal validity and generalisabilityMethodsA blinded randomized single-centre trial was conducted in a general teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients with reasonable to good health diagnosed with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis scheduled for cholecystectomy were included. Patients were randomized between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. Total costs were analyzed from a societal perspective.ResultsOperative costs were higher in the laparoscopic group using reusable laparoscopic instruments (difference 203 euro; 95% confidence interval 147 to 259 euro). There were no significant differences in the other direct cost categories (outpatient clinic and admittance related costs), indirect costs, and total costs. More than 60% of costs in employed patients were caused by sick leave.ConclusionBased on differences in costs, small-incision cholecystectomy seems to be the preferred operative technique over the laparoscopic technique both from a hospital and societal cost perspective. Sick leave associated with convalescence after cholecystectomy in employed patients results in considerable costs to society.Trial registrationISRCTN Register, number ISRCTN67485658.

Impact of a Nationwide Training Program in Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy (LAELAPS)

Objective: To study the feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). Summary of Background Data: Superior outcomes of MIDP compared with open distal pancreatectomy have been reported. In the Netherlands (2005 to 2013) only 10% of distal pancreatectomies were in a minimally invasive fashion and 85% of surgeons welcomed MIDP training. The feasibility and impact of a nationwide training program is unknown. Methods: From 2014 to 2015, 32 pancreatic surgeons from 17 centers participated in a nationwide training program in MIDP, including detailed technique description, video training, and proctoring on-site. Outcomes of MIDP before training (2005–2013) were compared with outcomes after training (2014–2015). Results: In total, 201 patients were included; 71 underwent MIDP in 9 years before training versus 130 in 22 months after training (7-fold increase, P < 0.001). The conversion rate (38% [n = 27] vs 8% [n = 11], P < 0.001) and blood loss were lower after training and more pancreatic adenocarcinomas were resected (7 [10%] vs 28 [22%], P = 0.03), with comparable R0-resection rates (4/7 [57%] vs 19/28 [68%], P = 0.67). Clavien-Dindo score ≥III complications (15 [21%] vs 19 [15%], P = 0.24) and pancreatic fistulas (20 [28%] vs 41 [32%], P = 0.62) were not significantly different. Length of hospital stay was shorter after training (9 [7–12] vs 7 [5–8] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was 3% vs 0% (P = 0.12). Conclusion: A nationwide MIDP training program was feasible and followed by a steep increase in the use of MIDP, also in patients with pancreatic cancer, and decreased conversion rates. Future studies should determine whether such a training program is applicable in other settings.