Phillip Knebel

Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer Up to 10 Years After Screening, Surveillance, or Diagnostic Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS Data from randomized controlled trials on the effects of screening colonoscopies on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are not available. Observational studies have suggested that colonoscopies strongly reduce the risk of CRC, but there is little specific evidence on the effects of screening colonoscopies. METHODS We performed a population-based case-control study of 3148 patients with a first diagnosis of CRC (cases) and 3274 subjects without CRC (controls) from the Rhine-Neckar region of Germany from 2003 to 2010. Detailed information on previous colonoscopy and potential confounding factors was collected by standardized personal interviews. Self-reported information on colonoscopies and their indications was validated by medical records. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between colonoscopy conducted for specific indications within the past 10 years and risk of CRC. RESULTS A history of colonoscopy was associated with a reduced subsequent risk of CRC, independently of the indication for the examination. However, somewhat stronger associations were found for examinations with screening indications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.13) than for examinations with diagnostic indications, such as positive fecal occult blood test result (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.57), surveillance after a preceding colonoscopy (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24-0.45), rectal bleeding (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.20-0.40), abdominal symptoms (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21), or other (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.14-0.30). Colonoscopy was also associated with a reduced risk of cancer in the right colon, regardless of the indication, although to a smaller extent than for other areas of the colon (OR for screening colonoscopy, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.14-0.33). CONCLUSIONS In a population-based case-control study, the risk of CRC was strongly reduced up to 10 years after colonoscopy for any indication. Risk was particularly low after screening colonoscopy, even for cancer in the right colon.

Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy.

Incisional hernia is the most frequent long‐term complication after visceral surgery, with an incidence of between 9 and 20 per cent 1 year after operation. Most controlled studies provide only short‐term follow‐up, and the actual incidence remains unclear. This study evaluated the incidence of incisional hernia up to 3 years after midline laparotomy in two prospective trials.

Effectiveness of triclosan-coated PDS Plus versus uncoated PDS II sutures for prevention of surgical site infection after abdominal wall closure: the randomised controlled PROUD trial

BACKGROUND Postoperative surgical site infections are one of the most frequent complications after open abdominal surgery, and triclosan-coated sutures were developed to reduce their occurrence. The aim of the PROUD trial was to obtain reliable data for the effectiveness of triclosan-coated PDS Plus sutures for abdominal wall closure, compared with non-coated PDS II sutures, in the prevention of surgical site infections. METHODS This multicentre, randomised controlled group-sequential superiority trial was done in 24 German hospitals. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent elective midline abdominal laparotomy for any reason were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were impaired mental state, language problems, and participation in another intervention trial that interfered with the intervention or outcome of this trial. A central web-based randomisation tool was used to randomly assign eligible participants by permuted block randomisation with a 1:1 allocation ratio and block size 4 before mass closure to either triclosan-coated sutures (PDS Plus) or uncoated sutures (PDS II) for abdominal fascia closure. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of superficial or deep surgical site infection according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria within 30 days after the operation. Patients, surgeons, and the outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. Interim and final analyses were by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, number DRKS00000390. FINDINGS Between April 7, 2010, and Oct 19, 2012, 1224 patients were randomly assigned to intervention groups (607 to PDS Plus, and 617 to PDS II), of whom 1185 (587 PDS Plus and 598 PDS II) were analysed by intention to treat. The study groups were well balanced in terms of patient and procedure characteristics. The occurrence of surgical site infections did not differ between the PDS Plus group (87 [14·8%] of 587) and the PDS II group (96 [16·1%] of 598; OR 0·91, 95% CI 0·66-1·25; p=0·64). Serious adverse events also did not differ between the groups-146 of 583 (25·0%) patients treated with PDS Plus had at least one serious adverse event, compared with 138 of 602 (22·9%) patients treated with PDS II; p=0·39). INTERPRETATION Triclosan-coated PDS Plus did not reduce the occurrence of surgical site infection after elective midline laparotomy. Innovative, multifactorial strategies need to be developed and assessed in future trials to reduce surgical site infections. FUNDING Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited.

Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus?

BackgroundDevelopment of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery remains a major cause of post-operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of surgeons in terms of access to and closure of the abdominal cavity in elective open surgery.MethodsTwelve surgical departments of the INSECT-Trial group documented the following variables for 50 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal surgery: fascial closure techniques, applied suture materials, application of subcutaneous sutures, subcutaneous drains, methods for skin closure. Descriptive analysis was performed and consensus of treatment variables was categorized into four levels: Strong consensus >95%, consensus 75–95%, overall agreement 50–75%, no consensus <50%.Results157 out of 599 patients were eligible for analysis (85 (54%) midline, 54 (35%) transverse incisions). After midline incisions the fascia was closed continuously in 55 patients (65%), using slowly absorbable (n = 47, 55%), braided (n = 32, 38%) sutures with a strength of 1 (n = 48, 57%). In the transverse setting the fascia was closed continuously in 39 patients (72%) with slowly absorbable (n = 22, 41%) braided sutures (n = 27, 50%) with a strength of 1 (n = 30, 56%).ConclusionIn the present evaluation midline incision was the most frequently applied access in elective open abdominal surgery. None of the treatments for abdominal wall closure (except skin closure in the midline group) is performed on a consensus level.

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-center, Randomized, Controlled Pandra Trial (isrctn04937707).

Objective: This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of drains does not increase reintervention rates after pancreatic surgery. Background: There is considerable uncertainty regarding intra-abdominal drainage after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis were randomized to intra-abdominal drainage versus no drainage. Primary endpoint was overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention). Secondary endpoints were clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C), mortality, morbidity, and hospital stay. The planned sample size was 188 patients per group. Results: A total of 438 patients were randomized. Forty-three patients (9.8%) were excluded because no pancreatic anastomosis was performed, and 395 patients (202 drain, 193 no-drain) were analyzed. Reintervention rates were not inferior in the no-drain group (drain 21.3%, no-drain 16.6%; P = 0.0004). Overall in-hospital mortality (3.0%) was the same in both groups (drain 3.0%, no-drain 3.1%; P = 0.936). Overall surgical morbidity (41.8%) was comparable (P = 0.741). Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C: drain 11.9%, no-drain 5.7%; P = 0.030) and fistula-associated complications (drain 26.4%; no drain 13.0%; P = 0.0008) were significantly reduced in the no-drain group. Operation time (P = 0.093), postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.174), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.199), biliary leakage (P = 0.382), delayed gastric emptying (P = 0.062), burst abdomen (P = 0.480), wound infection (P = 0.758), and hospital stay (P = 0.487) did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Omission of drains was not inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reintervention and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. There is no need for routine prophylactic drainage after pancreatic resection with pancreaticojejunal anastomosis.

A multicentre, randomized clinical trial comparing the Veriset™ haemostatic patch with fibrin sealant for the management of bleeding during hepatic surgery

BACKGROUND Bleeding during hepatic surgery is associated with prolonged hospitalization and increased morbidity and mortality. The Veriset™ haemostatic patch is a topical haemostat comprised of an absorbable backing made of oxidized cellulose and self-adhesive hydrogel components. It is designed to achieve haemostasis quickly and adhere to tissues without fixation. METHODS A prospective, randomized, multicentre, single-blinded study (n = 50) was performed to compare the use of a Veriset™ haemostatic patch with a fibrin sealant patch (TachoSil(®) ) (control) in the management of diffuse bleeding after hepatic surgery. Patients were randomized following the confirmation of diffuse bleeding requiring the use of a topical haemostat. Time to haemostasis was assessed at preset intervals until haemostasis was achieved. RESULTS Both groups were similar in comorbidities and procedural techniques. The median time to haemostasis in the group using the Veriset™ haemostatic patch was 1.0 min compared with 3.0 min in the control group (P < 0.001; 3-min minimum application time for the control patch). This result was independent of bleeding severity and surface area. Both products had similar safety profiles and no statistical differences were observed in the occurrence of adverse or device-related events. CONCLUSIONS Regardless of bleeding severity or surface area, the Veriset™ haemostatic patch achieved haemostasis in this setting significantly faster than the control device in patients undergoing hepatic resection. It was safe and easy to handle in open hepatic surgery.

Industry Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in General and Abdominal Surgery: An Empirical Study.

Background: Industry sponsorship has been identified as a source of bias in several fields of medical science. To date, the influence of industry sponsorship in the field of general and abdominal surgery has not been evaluated. Methods: A systematic literature search (1985–2014) was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery. Information on funding source, outcome, and methodological quality was extracted. Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A &khgr;2 test and a multivariate logistic regression analysis with study characteristics and known sources of bias were performed. Results: A total of 7934 articles were screened and 165 randomized controlled trials were included. No difference in methodological quality was found. Industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant results for the primary endpoint (OR, 2.44; CI, 1.04–5.71; P = 0.04). Eighty-eight of 115 (76.5%) industry-funded trials and 19 of 50 (38.0%) non–industry-funded trials reported a positive outcome (OR, 5.32; CI, 2.60–10.88; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials more often reported a positive outcome without statistical justification (OR, 5.79; CI, 2.13–15.68; P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, funding source remained significantly associated with reporting of positive outcome (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Industry funding of surgical trials leads to exaggerated positive reporting of outcomes. This study emphasizes the necessity for declaration of funding source. Industry involvement in surgical research has to ensure scientific integrity and independence and has to be based on full transparency.

Meta-analysis of complication rates for single-loop versus dual-loop (Roux-en-Y) with isolated pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is one of the most important and potentially severe complications after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy. In this context, the reduction of postoperative pancreatic fistula by means of a dual‐loop (Roux‐en‐Y) reconstruction with isolation of the pancreaticojejunostomy from biliary drainage has been evaluated in several studies. This systematic review and meta‐analysis summarizes evidence of effectiveness and safety of the isolation of the pancreaticojejunostomy compared with conventional single‐loop reconstruction.

Randomized clinical trial of a modified Seldinger technique for open central venous cannulation for implantable access devices

Totally implantable access ports (TIAPs) are often used for patients who need permanent venous access. The primary success rate using direct open insertion is about 80 per cent, so rescue strategies are needed. This study compared the primary success rates of standard open insertion and a modified Seldinger technique.

Prevention of abdominal wound infection (PROUD trial, DRKS00000390): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundWound infection affects a considerable portion of patients after abdominal operations, increasing health care costs and postoperative morbidity and affecting quality of life. Antibacterial coating has been suggested as an effective measure to decrease postoperative wound infections after laparotomies. The INLINE metaanalysis has recently shown the superiority of a slowly absorbable continuous suture for abdominal closure; with PDS plus® such a suture has now been made available with triclosan antibacterial coating.Methods/DesignThe PROUD trial is designed as a randomised, controlled, observer, surgeon and patient blinded multicenter superiority trial with two parallel groups and a primary endpoint of wound infection during 30 days after surgery. The intervention group will receive triclosan coated polydioxanone sutures, whereas the control group will receive the standard polydioxanone sutures; abdominal closure will otherwise be standardized in both groups. Statistical analysis is based on intention-to-treat population via binary logistic regression analysis, the total sample size of n = 750 is sufficient to ensure alpha = 5% and power = 80%, an interim analysis will be carried out after data of 375 patients are available.DiscussionThe PROUD trial will yield robust data to determine the effectiveness of antibacterial coating in one of the standard sutures for abdominal closure and potentially lead to amendment of current guidelines. The exploration of clinically objective parameters as well as quality of life holds immediate relevance for clinical management and the pragmatic trial design ensures high external validity.Trial RegistrationThe trial protocol has been registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000390).