Peter van Duijvendijk

Cumulative risk of developing polyps or malignancy at the ileal pouch—anal anastomosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is performed in an increasing number of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Two techniques are currently used to construct an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: (1) a double-stapled anastomosis between the pouch and the anal canal and (2) mucosectomy with a hand-sewn iteoanal anastomosis at the dentate line. Although this procedure is thought to abolish the risk of colorectal adenoma, an increasing number of case reports have been published concerning the development of adenoma at the anastomotic site. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the overall cumulative risk of developing adenomatous polyps after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and to compare the cumulative risk after either anastomotic technique. A total of 126 consecutive FAP patients undergoing a restorative proctocolectomy were identified from polyposis registries in The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Germany, and New York. Life-table analysis was used to calculate the cumulative risk of developing polyps in 97 patients with at least 1 year of endoscopic follow-up (median 66 months, range 12 to 188 months). A double-stapled anastomosis was used in 35 patients, whereas in 62 patients a handsewn anastomosis with a mucosectomy was performed. In 13 patients polyps developed at the anastomotic site, four with severe and four with moderate dysplasia. None of the patients developed a carcinoma at the anastomotic site. The cumulative risk of developing a polyp at the anastomotic site was 8% (95% confidence interval 2% to 14%) at 3.5 years and 18% (95% confidence interval 8% to 28%) at 7 years, respectively. The risk of developing a polyp at the anastomotic site within 7 years was 31 % for patients with a double-stapled vs. 10% for patients with a hand-sewn anastomosis with mucosectomy (P = 0.03 [log-rank test]). Because FAP patients undergoing a restorative proctocolectomy with either a double-stapled or hand-sewn anastomosis have a substantial risk of developing adenomatous polyps at the anastomotic site, lifelong endoscopic surveillance is mandatory in both groups.

Functional outcome after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis compared with proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in familial adenomatous polyposis.

OBJECTIVE To compare the long-term functional results of ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) with those of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA In patients with FAP, hundreds of colorectal adenomas develop, and the patient will die of colorectal cancer if left untreated. The surgeon must choose between colectomy with IRA and restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA. One factor crucial to decision making is the functional outcome after either procedure. To date, studies on this issue have reported conflicting results and have been based on small series of patients. METHODS To assess various functional variables, a questionnaire was sent to 323 patients with FAP who underwent either IRA or IPAA and who were registered at the Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumors. The overall response rate was 86%; the responders comprised 161 patients who underwent IRA and 118 patients who underwent IPAA. RESULTS Patients who underwent IRA scored significantly better for daytime and nighttime stool frequency, soiling, occasional passive incontinence, flatus and feces discrimination, stool consistency, and need for antidiarrheal medication. There was no difference with regard to perianal irritation, episodes of bowel discomfort, or dietary restrictions. The functional results according to the aggregate score of the Gastro-Intestinal Functional Outcome Scale, where the items specified above were integrated (0 indicating a poor and 100 a good overall function), were significantly better in patients with an IRA (74.5) than in patients with an IPAA (66.0) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION The functional outcome after IRA is significantly better than after IPAA. On the basis of these results, IRA might still be considered in patients with a mild phenotypic expression of the disease in the rectum.

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.

Quality of life after surgery for colon cancer in patients with Lynch syndrome: partial versus subtotal colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a disorder caused by mismatch repair gene mutations. Mutation carriers have a high risk of developing colorectal cancer. In patients with Lynch syndrome in whom colon cancer has been diagnosed, in general, subtotal colectomy instead of partial colectomy is recommended because of the substantial risk of metachronous colorectal cancer. However, the effect of more extensive surgery on quality of life and functional outcome is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate quality of life and functional outcome in patients with Lynch syndrome after partial colectomy and subtotal colectomy. DESIGN: This is a nationwide cross-sectional study in the Netherlands. SETTINGS: Two quality-of-life questionnaires (Short Form-36 and The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Colorectal Cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Module) and a functional outcome questionnaire (Colorectal Functional Outcome) were used. PATIENTS: Patients with Lynch syndrome who underwent surgery for colon cancer were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were quality of life and functional outcome. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent to 192 patients with Lynch syndrome who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer. A total of 136 patients returned the questionnaire (response rate, 71%). Eighteen patients with rectal cancer, 9 patients with a permanent ileostomy, and 5 patients with an IPAA were excluded. Fifty-one patients underwent partial colectomy, and 53 underwent subtotal colectomy. None of the scales of the Short Form-36 survey showed a significant difference. Analysis of the Colorectal Functional Outcome questionnaire revealed that, after subtotal colectomy, patients have a significantly higher stool frequency (p ⩽ 0.01) and a significantly higher score on stool-related aspects (p = 0.06) and social impact (p = 0.03). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Colorectal Cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Module presented more problems with defecation after subtotal colectomy (p ⩽ 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Certain selection bias cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Although functional outcome is worse after subtotal colectomy than after partial colectomy, generic quality of life does not differ after the 2 types of surgery in Lynch syndrome. When discussing the options for surgery with the patient, all advantages and disadvantages of both surgical procedures, including quality of life and functional outcome, should be discussed.

Biological Mesh Closure of the Pelvic Floor After Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (the BIOPEX-study)

Objective: To determine the effect of biological mesh closure on perineal wound healing after extralevator abdominoperineal resection (eAPR). Background: Perineal wound complications frequently occur after eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Cohort studies have suggested that biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor improves perineal wound healing. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to primary closure (standard arm) or biological mesh closure (intervention arm). A non–cross-linked porcine acellular dermal mesh was sutured to the pelvic floor remnants in the intervention arm, followed by a layered closure of the ischioanal and subcutaneous fat and skin similar to the control intervention. The outcome of the randomization was concealed from the patient and perineal wound assessor. The primary endpoint was the rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing defined as a Southampton wound score of less than 2 at 30 days postoperatively. Patients were followed for 1 year. Results: In total, 104 patients were randomly assigned to primary closure (n = 54; 1 dropouts) and biological mesh closure (n = 50; 2 dropouts). Uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate at 30 days was 66% (33/50; 3 not evaluable) after primary closure, which did not significantly differ from 63% (30/48) after biological mesh closure [relative risk 1.056; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7854–1.4197; P = 0.7177). Freedom from perineal hernia at 1 year was 73% (95% CI 60.93–85.07) versus 87% (95% CI 77.49–96.51), respectively (P = 0.0316). Conclusions: Perineal wound healing after eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer was not improved when using a biological mesh. A significantly lower 1-year perineal hernia rate after biological mesh closure is a promising secondary finding that needs longer follow-up to determine its clinical relevance.

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor with primary perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (BIOPEX-study)

BackgroundPrimary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.Methods/DesignIn this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.DiscussionThe BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.Trail registration numberNCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).

What is the benefit of preoperative sperm preservation for patients who undergo restorative proctocolectomy for benign diseases

PURPOSE: In patients with benign colorectal diseases undergoing a restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, semen cryopreservation seems rational to enable the possibility of procreation in case surgery leads to sexual disorders or impotence. The aim of this study was to determine the preoperative and postoperative semen quality in patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In addition, the study sought to determine the incidence of surgery-induced sexual dysfunction to evaluate the economic efficiency of semen cryopreservation as compared with alternatives such as microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration. METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative semen analyses were offered to 97 patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with benign colorectal diseases since 1989. The direct costs of the semen cryopreservation program were determined and compared with those of alternatives. RESULTS: In 34 of 40 consecutive patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis who made use of preoperative semen preservation, normal sperm concentrations, motility, and morphology were found. Mean semen characteristics of all 23 patients who returned for postoperative analysis were not different from preoperative values, but they were for total sperm number. Two patients developed temporary retrograde ejaculation postoperatively. None of the preserved semen samples was used, thus semen cryopreservation benefited none of these patients. The total costs of semen cryopreservation are between 2.2 and 5 times higher than the costs for one microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative semen cryopreservation in patients undergoing ileal pouch-anal anastomosis because of benign colorectal diseases is quite feasible. However, most likely because of improved surgical techniques and the increasing number of effective alternatives, preoperative semen cryopreservation in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is no longer cost effective.

Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:Electromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement.Methods:We performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.Results:Reinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference −6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008).Conclusions:EM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement.

Electromagnetic guided bedside or endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients (CORE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundGastroparesis is common in surgical patients and frequently leads to the need for enteral tube feeding. Nasoenteral feeding tubes are usually placed endoscopically by gastroenterologists, but this procedure is relatively cumbersome for patients and labor-intensive for hospital staff. Electromagnetic (EM) guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may reduce patient discomfort, workload and costs, but randomized studies are lacking, especially in surgical patients. We hypothesize that EM guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes is at least as effective as endoscopic placement in surgical patients, at lower costs.Methods/DesignThe CORE trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. A total of 154 patients admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five hospitals, requiring nasoenteral feeding, will be randomly allocated to undergo EM guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Primary outcome is reinsertion of the feeding tube, defined as the insertion of an endoscope or tube in the nose/mouth and esophagus for (re)placement of the feeding tube (e.g. after failed initial placement or dislodgement or blockage of the tube). Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, costs and tube (placement) related complications.DiscussionThe CORE trial is designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of EM guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients and the impact on costs as compared to endoscopic placement. The trial potentially offers a strong argument for wider implementation of this technique as method of choice for placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register: NTR4420, date registered 5-feb-2014

Management of resectable esophageal and gastric (mixed adeno)neuroendocrine carcinoma: A nationwide cohort study.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study is to provide insight in accuracy of diagnosing, current treatment and survival in patients with resectable esophageal and gastric neuroendocrine- and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC, MANEC). METHODS All patients with esophageal or gastric (MA)NEC, who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2016, were identified from the Dutch national registry for histo- and cytopathology (PALGA). Patients with a neuroendocrine tumor lower than grade 3 were excluded. Data on patients, treatment and outcomes were retrieved from the patient records. Diagnosis by endoscopic biopsy was compared with diagnosis by resection specimen. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed. RESULTS A total of 49 patients were identified in 25 hospitals, including 21 patients with esophageal (MA)NEC and 26 patients with gastric (MA)NEC on resection specimen. Biopsy diagnosis of (MA)NEC was correct in 23/27 patients. However, 20/47 patients with definitive diagnosis of (MA)NEC, were misdiagnosed on biopsy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 13 (62%) esophageal (MA)NECs and 12 (46%) gastric (MA)NECs. Survival curves were similar with and without neoadjuvant therapy. One (4.8%) esophageal (MA)NEC and 4 (15%) gastric (MA)NECs died within 90 days postoperatively. For esophageal (MA)NEC the median overall survival (OS) after surgery was 37 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 71%, 50% and 35%, respectively. For gastric (MA)NEC, the median OS was 23 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 62%, 50% and 39%, respectively. CONCLUSION Localized esophageal and gastric (MA)NEC are often misdiagnosed on endoscopic biopsies. After resection, long-term survival was achieved in respectively 35% and 39% of patients.