E. C. J. Consten

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitisA and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitisB in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

BackgroundRecently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis).Methods/DesignIn this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmanns procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmanns procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs.DiscussionThe Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR2037

Randomized clinical trial of observational versus antibiotic treatment for a first episode of CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis.

Antibiotics are advised in most guidelines on acute diverticulitis, despite a lack of evidence to support their routine use. This trial compared the effectiveness of a strategy with or without antibiotics for a first episode of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis.

Anorectal surgery in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

PURPOSE: Anorectal disease is commonly found in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. The aim of this study was to determine the spectrum of anorectal disease, its surgical treatment, clinical outcome, and its relation to immune status. METHODS: Medical records of all HIV-infected patients with anorectal pathology that required surgical treatment from January 1984 to January 1994 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into five different groups: common anorectal pathology (hemorrhoids, polyps, Group A); condylomata acuminata (Group B); perianal sepsis (abscesses, fistulas, Group C); anorectal ulcers (Group D); malignancies (Group E). RESULTS: Eighty-three patients needed 204 surgical consultations (13 percent conservative, 87 percent operative) for 170 anorectal diseases. Fifty-one patients had multiple anorectal pathology. Operative intervention resulted in adequate wound healing and symptom relief in 59 percent of patients, adequate wound healing without relief of symptoms in 24 percent of patients, and disturbed wound healing in 17 percent of patients. Disturbed wound healing was related to type of anorectal disease (P<0.001) and to preoperative CD4+-lymphocyte counts (P<0.01). Disturbed wound healing and most insufficient immune status were encountered in Groups C, D, and E. Within these groups low CD4+-lymphocyte counts were a risk factor for disturbed wound healing (P=0.004). Median postoperative survival was highest (4.7 years) in Group A, lowest (0.6 years) in Groups D and E, and related to type of anorectal disease (P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of anorectal disease is complex. Type of anorectal disease is strongly related to immune status, wound healing, and postoperative survival.

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

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study)

BackgroundRecent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas.Methods/designMulticenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma ≥ 3 cm, located between 1–15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment.Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures.Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group.DiscussionThe TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas.Trial registration number(trialregister.nl) NTR1422

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection versus infliximab treatment of distal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomized multicenter trial (LIR!C-trial)

BackgroundWith the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohns disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohns disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction.The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohns disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs.Methods/designThe study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohns disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007.DiscussionThe LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohns disease.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR1150

DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL

BackgroundPersisting 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/designThe 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.DiscussionConsidering 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)

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

The value of inflammation markers and body temperature in acute diverticulitis

To determine the diagnostic value of serological infection markers and body temperature in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCurrently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn’s disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs.Methods/DesignThis is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn’s disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs.DiscussionThe PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn’s disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013).