Stefan Sauerland

Diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease

AbstractBackground: With the aim of resolving the current controversy over the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease, this consensus development conference set out to summarize the actual state of the art. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of international experts (n= 16) was selected to take part in the consensus process. Prior to the conference, all experts were asked to answer a series of questions on diverticular disease. The consensus statement compiled out of these evaluations was modified during a joint meeting of the panel members, then presented for discussion in a public session, and finally revised by the expert panel. The finalized statement was mailed to all panel members for approval (Delphi method). Results: Asymptomatic diverticulosis, diverticular disease (with actual or recurrent symptoms), and complicated diverticular disease were defined separately. No agreement was reached on whether barium enema or colonoscopy is the better choice as an initial diagnostic tool in uncomplicated cases. In complicated cases, computed tomography is recommended for diagnosis. After two attacks of diverticular disease, elective resection should be considered. For patients in whom a concomitant carcinoma cannot be excluded and those with chronic complications (fistula, stenosis, or bleeding) surgery is also indicated. Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is recommended only for uncomplicated and, after percutaneous drainage of abscesses, Hinchey stage I and II cases. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery has already begun to influence the management of diverticular disease, but the randomized controlled trials needed to support therapy decisions are largely missing.

The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery

Background: The pneumoperitoneum is the crucial element in laparoscopic surgery. Different clinical problems are associated with this procedure, which has led to various modifications of the technique. The aim of this guideline is to define the scientifically proven standards of the pneumoperitoneum. Methods: Based on systematic literature searches (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane), an expert panel consensually formulated clinical recommendations, which were graded according to the strength of available literature evidence. Recommendations: Preoperatively, all patients should be assessed for the presence of cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic, renal, or vascular comorbidity. Presupposing appropriate perioperative measures and surgical technique, there is no reason to contraindicate pneumoperitoneum in patients with peritonitis or intraabdominal malignancy. During laparoscopy, monitoring of end tidal CO2 concentration is mandatory. The available data on closed- (Veress needle) and open-access techniques do not allow us to principally favor the use of either technique. Using 2 to 5-mm instead of 5 to 10-mm trocars improves cosmetic result and postoperative pain marginally. It is recommended to use the lowest intraabdominal pressure allowing adequate exposure of the operative field, rather than using a routine pressure. In patients with limited cardiac, pulmonary, or renal function, abdominal wall lifting combined with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum might be an alternative. Abdominal wall lifting devices have no clinically relevant advantages compared to low-pressure (5–7 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum. In patients with cardiopulmonary diseases, intra- and postoperative arterial blood gas monitoring is recommended. The clinical benefits of warmed, humidified insufflation gas are minor and contradictory. Intraoperative sequential intermittent pneumatic compression of the lower extremities is recommended for all prolonged laparoscopic procedures. For the prevention of postoperative pain a wide range of treatment options exists. Although all these options seem to reduce pain, the data currently do not justify a general recommendation.

Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

Emergency laparoscopic exploration can be used to identify the causative pathology of acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery also allows treatment of many intraabdominal disorders. This report was prepared to describe the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to laparotomy or nonoperative treatment. A panel of European experts in abdominal and gynecological surgery was assembled and participated in a consensus conference using Delphi methods. The aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the most common diseases that may cause acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery was found to be clearly superior for patients with a presumable diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer, acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. In the emergency setting, laparoscopy is of unclear or limited value if adhesive bowel obstruction, acute diverticulitis, nonbiliary pancreatitis, hernia incarceration, or mesenteric ischemia are suspected. In stable patients with acute abdominal pain, noninvasive diagnostics should be fully exhausted before considering explorative surgery. However, diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful if no diagnosis can be found by conventional diagnostics. More clinical data are needed on the use of laparoscopy after blunt or penetrating trauma of the abdomen. Due to diagnostic and therapeutic advantages, laparoscopic surgery is useful for the majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, but noninvasive diagnostic aids should be exhausted first. Depending on symptom severity, laparoscopy should be advocated if routine diagnostic procedures have failed to yield results.

Obesity surgery: Evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of morbid obesity together with the development of laparoscopic approaches has led to a steep rise in the number of bariatric operations. These guidelines intend to define the comparative effectivness and surrounding circumstances of the various types of obesity surgery.MethodsA consensus panel representing the fields of general/endoscopic surgery, nutrition and epidemiology convened to agree on specific questions in obesity surgery. Databases were systematically searched for clinical trial results in order to produce evidence-based recommendations. Following two days of discussion by the experts and a plenary discussion, the final statements were issued.RecommendationsAfter the patient’s multidisciplinary evaluation, obesity surgery should be considered in adults with a documented BMI greater than or equal to 35 and related comorbidity, or a BMI of at least 40. In addition to standard laboratory testing, chest radiography, electrocardiography, spirometry, and abdominal ultrasonography, the preoperative evaluation of obesity surgery patients also includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or radiologic evaluation with a barium meal. Psychiatric consultation and polysomnography can safely be restricted to patients with clinical symptoms on preoperative screening. Adjustable gastric banding (GB), vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) are all effective in the treatment of morbid obesity, but differ in degree of weight loss and range of complications. The choice of procedure therefore should be tailored to the individual situation. There is evidence that a laparoscopic approach is advantageous for LAGB, VBG, and GB (and probably also for BPD). Antibiotic and antithromboembolic prophylaxis should be used routinely. Patients should be seen 3 to 8 times during the first postoperative year, 1 to 4 times during the second year and once or twice a year thereafter. Outcome assessment after surgery should include weight loss and maintainance, nutritional status, comorbidities and quality-of-life.

Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundFor the scientific evaluation of the endoscopic and open mesh techniques for the repair of inguinal hernia, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT) are necessary. The Lichtenstein repair is one of the most common open mesh techniques and therefore of special interest.MethodsAfter an extensive search of the literature and a quality assessment, a total of 34 RCT comparing endoscopic procedures both transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP)—with various open mesh repairs were deemed to be suitable for a formal meta-analysis of the relevant parameters. These studies included data for 7,223 patients. Trials that used the Lichtenstein repair for the control group (23 of 34 trials) were analyzed-separately.ResultsSignificant advantages for the endoscopic procedures compared with the Lichtenstein repair include a lower incidence of wound infection (Peto odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.26, 0.61), a reduction in hematoma formation (0.69 [0.54, 0.90]) and nerve injury (0.46 [0.35, 0.61]), an earlier return to normal activities or work (–1.35[–1.72, –0.97]), and fewer incidences of chronic pain syndrome (0.56[0.44, 0.70]). No difference was found in total morbidity or in the incidence of intestinal lesions, urinary bladder lesions, major vascular lesions, urinary retention and testicular problems. Significant advantages for the Lichtenstein repair include in a shorter operating time (5.45[1.18, 9.73]), a lower incidence of seroma formation (1.42[1.13, 1.79]), and fewer hernia recurrences (2.00[1.46, 2.74]). Similar results are seen when endoscopic procedures are compared with other open mesh repairs. However, in this comparison, total morbidity was lower with the endoscopic operations (0.73[0.61, 0.89]). The incidence of seroma formation, chronic pain syndromes, and hernia recurrence was not significantly different.ConclusionEndoscopic repairs do have advantages interms of local complications and pain-associated parameters. For more detailed evaluation further well-structured trials with improved standardization of hernia type, operative technique, and surgeons’ experience are necessary.

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

BackgroundMeasuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research.MethodsAn expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research.ResultsRandomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely. The following QoL instruments can be recommended: for benign esophageal and gallbladder disease, the GIQLI or the QOLRAD together with SF-36 or the PGWB; for obesity surgery, the IWQOL-Lite with the SF-36; for colorectal cancer, the FACT-C or the EORTC QLQ-C30/CR38; for inguinal and renal surgery, the VAS for pain with the SF-36 (or the EORTC QLQ-C30 in case of malignancy); and after hysterectomy, the SF-36 together with an evaluation of urinary and sexual function.ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery provides better postoperative QoL in many clinical situations. Researchers would improve the quality of future studies by using validated QoL instruments such as those recommended here.

Risks and benefits of preoperative high dose methylprednisolone in surgical patients: a systematic review.

AbstractBackground: A single preoperative high dose of methylprednisolone (15 to 30 mg/kg) has been advocated in surgery, because it may inhibit the surgical stress response and thereby improve postoperative outcome and convalescence. However, these potential clinical benefits must be weighed against possible adverse effects. Objective: To conduct a risk-benefit analysis using a meta-analysis, to compare complication rates and clinical advantages associated with the use of high dose methylprednisolone in surgical patients. Methods: Randomised controlled trials of high dose methylprednisolone in elective and trauma surgery were systematically searched for in various literature databases. Outcome data on adverse effects, postoperative pain and hospital stay were extracted and statistically pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses. Results: We located 51 studies in elective cardiac and noncardiac surgery, aswell as traumatology. Pooled data failed to show any significant increase in complication rates. In patients treated with corticosteroids, nonsignificantly more gastrointestinal bleeding and wound complications were observed; the 95% confidence interval boundaries of the numbers-needed-to-harm were 59 and 38, respectively. The only significant finding was a reduction of pulmonary complications (risk difference −3.5%; 95% confidence interval −1.0 to −6.1), mainly in trauma patients. Conclusion: For patients undergoing surgical procedures, a perioperative single-shot administration of high dose methylprednisolone is not associated with a significant increase in the incidence of adverse effects. In patients with multiple fractures, limited evidence suggests promising benefits of glucocorticoids on pulmonary complications.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A Vacuum of Evidence?

OBJECTIVE To systematically examine the clinical effectiveness and safety of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) compared with conventional wound therapy. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Manufacturers were contacted, and trial registries were screened. STUDY SELECTION Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing NPWT and conventional therapy for acute or chronic wounds were included in this review. The main outcomes of interest were wound-healing variables. After screening 255 full-text articles, 17 studies remained. In addition, 19 unpublished trials were found, of which 5 had been prematurely terminated. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodologic quality in a standardized manner. DATA SYNTHESIS Seven RCTs (n = 324) and 10 non-RCTs (n = 278) met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodologic quality of the trials was poor. Significant differences in favor of NPWT for time to wound closure or incidence of wound closure were shown in 2 of 5 RCTs and 2 of 4 non-RCTs. A meta-analysis of changes in wound size that included 4 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs favored NPWT (standardized mean difference: RCTs, -0.57; non-RCTs, -1.30). CONCLUSIONS Although there is some indication that NPWT may improve wound healing, the body of evidence available is insufficient to clearly prove an additional clinical benefit of NPWT. The large number of prematurely terminated and unpublished trials is reason for concern.

LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY FOR SEVERE ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS. A META-ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to evaluate surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gangrenous and empyematous acute cholecystitis defined as severe acute cholecystitis.BackgroundIt is not known to what extent surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for severe acute cholecystitis differ from those for the nonsevere acute form, making it questionable whether urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the best approach even in severe acute cases.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted to identify: (1) comparative studies which reported laparoscopic surgical outcomes separately for severe acute and nonsevere acute cholecystitis; (2) studies comparing such an approach with open cholecystectomy, subtotal laparoscopic cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy in severe acute cholecystitis. Results were pooled by standard meta-analytic techniques.ResultsSeven studies with a total of 1,408 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were found. The risks of conversion (RR 3.2, 95% CI 2.5 to 4.2) and overall postoperative complications (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.2) were significantly higher in severe acute cholecystitis with respect to the nonsevere acute forms. However, no difference was detected as regards to local postoperative complications. No studies comparing open cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy with urgent laparoscopy were found.ConclusionA lower feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been found for severe cholecystitis. A lower threshold of conversion is recommended since this may allow to reduce local postoperative complications. Literature data lack valuable comparative studies with other treatment modalities, which therefore need to be investigated.

Laparoscopic vs conventional appendectomy – a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Aim: To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic and conventional “open” appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Methods: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials available by May 1998 that compared both techniques. Within each trial and for each outcome an effect size was calculated; the effect sizes were then pooled by a random-effects model. Results: We summarised outcome data of 2877 patients included in 28 trials. Operating time was +16 min (95% confidence interval +12–20 min) longer for laparoscopic appendectomy. Overall complication rates were comparable, but wound infections were definitely reduced after laparoscopy [rate difference –4.2%, (–2.3% to –6.1%)]. Intra-abdominal abscesses, however, occurred slightly more frequently [+0.9%, (–0.4% to +2.3%)]. Hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy was 15 h (8–23 h) shorter, and patients returned to full fitness or work 7 days (5–9 days) earlier. Pain intensity on day 1 was slightly less. Heterogeneity was present for some outcome measures due to methodological differences among the primary studies. Conclusion: Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces wound infections and eases postoperative recovery. Nevertheless, the various differences among the primary studies and their partly flawed methodology make it difficult to generalise from these findings.