Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Is Not Associated With Improved Survival After Pancreatic Surgery: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Randomized Controlled PAKMAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are common forms of analgesia after pancreatic surgery. Current guidelines recommend EDA over PCIA, and evidence suggests that EDA may improve long-term survival after surgery, especially in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative EDA is associated with an improved patient prognosis compared to PCIA in pancreatic surgery. METHODS: The PAKMAN trial was an adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial conducted from June 2015 to October 2017. Three to five years after index surgery a long-term follow-up was performed from October 2020 to April 2021. RESULTS: For long-term follow-up of survival, 109 patients with EDA were compared to 111 patients with PCIA after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Long-term follow-up of quality of life (QoL) and pain assessment was available for 40 patients with EDA and 45 patients with PCIA (questionnaire response rate: 94%). Survival analysis revealed that EDA, when compared to PCIA, was not associated with improved overall survival (OS, HR, 1.176, 95% HR-CI, 0.809-1.710, P = .397, n = 220). Likewise, recurrence-free survival did not differ between groups (HR, 1.116, 95% HR-CI, 0.817-1.664, P = .397, n = 220). OS subgroup analysis including only patients with malignancies showed no significant difference between EDA and PCIA (HR, 1.369, 95% HR-CI, 0.932-2.011, P = .109, n = 179). Similar long-term effects on QoL and pain severity were observed in both groups (EDA: n = 40, PCIA: n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this long-term follow-up of the PAKMAN randomized controlled trial do not support favoring EDA over PCIA in pancreatic surgery. Until further evidence is available, EDA and PCIA should be considered similar regarding long-term survival.

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. METHODS: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214. Registered on 4th July 2022.

Measuring patient centeredness with German language Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM)-A systematic review and qualitative analysis according to COSMIN.

BACKGROUND: Patient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.

Clinical outcomes of patients treated on the Heidelberg interprofessional training ward vs. care on a conventional surgical ward: A retrospective cohort study.

Interprofessional training wards (IPTW) are a form of interprofessional education enabling trainees of different healthcare professions to work together in teams. Concerns about patient safety are a major barrier to the implementation of IPTWs. The objective of this retrospective study was to analyze patient relevant clinical outcomes on Germany's first IPTW (Heidelberger Interprofessionelle Ausbildungsstation; HIPSTA) in the Department of Surgery at University Hospital Heidelberg in comparison to a conventional surgical ward (CSW). The setting is a large tertiary care center with a focus on major oncological surgery. The endpoints were postoperative complications according to the Dindo-Clavien Classification and a set of patient-safety outcomes. In total, 232 patients treated on HIPSTA were retrospectively compared with 465 patients on a CSW. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. No significant difference between rate or severity of overall postoperative complications was observed. In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between groups. However, the mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter on HIPSTA. Furthermore, HIPSTA patients had less frequent reoperations. Patient safety in surgical IPTW was not compromised in comparison to a CSW, and there were some areas where significantly better outcomes were identified.

Efficacy of different spinal cord stimulation paradigms for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain (PARS-trial): study protocol for a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective method to treat neuropathic pain; however, it is challenging to compare different stimulation modalities in an individual patient, and thus, it is largely unknown which of the many available SCS modalities is most effective. Specifically, electrodes leading out through the skin would have to be consecutively connected to different, incompatible SCS devices and be tested over a time period of several weeks or even months. The risk of wound infections for such a study would be unacceptably high and blinding of the trial difficult. The PARS-trial seizes the capacity of a new type of wireless SCS device, which enables a blinded and systematic intra-patient comparison of different SCS modalities over extended time periods and without increasing wound infection rates. METHODS: The PARS-trial is designed as a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled multi-center crossover study. It will compare the clinical effectiveness of the three most relevant SCS paradigms in individual patients. The trial will recruit 60 patients suffering from intractable neuropathic pain of the lower extremities, who have been considered for SCS therapy and were already implanted with a wireless SCS device prior to study participation. Over a time period of 35 days, patients will be treated consecutively with three different SCS paradigms ("burst," "1 kHz," and "1.499 kHz") and placebo stimulation. Each SCS paradigm will be applied for 5 days with a washout period of 70 h between stimulation cycles. The primary endpoint of the study is the level of pain self-assessment on the visual analogue scale after 5 days of SCS. Secondary, exploratory endpoints include self-assessment of pain quality (as determined by painDETECT questionnaire), quality of life (as determined by Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), anxiety perception (as determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and physical restriction (as determined by the Oswestry Disability Index). DISCUSSION: Combining paresthesia-free SCS modalities with wireless SCS offers a unique opportunity for a blinded and systematic comparison of different SCS modalities in individual patients. This trial will advance our understanding of the clinical effectiveness of the most relevant SCS paradigms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00018929 . Registered on 14 January 2020.

Standard of Care and Outcomes of Primary Laparotomy Versus Laparotomy in Patients with Prior Open Abdominal Surgery (ReLap Study; DRKS00013001).

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. The aim of this trial was to determine standard of care and gain evidence of intra- and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing relaparotomy compared to primary laparotomy. METHODS: In this single-center controlled clinical trial, adult patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via relaparotomy or primary laparotomy were consecutively screened for eligibility. The perioperative course was monitored prospectively in five study visits during hospital stay and one study visit 1 year after surgery. Intraoperative standards, short and long-term outcomes were statistically explored at a level of significance of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients with relaparotomy and 50 patients with primary laparotomy were analyzed. In the relaparotomy group, the access to the abdomen took longer (23.5 min vs. 8.8 min; p = < 0.001) and the peritoneal adhesion index was higher (10.8 vs. 0.4; p = < 0.001). Inadvertent enterotomies were more frequent in the relaparotomy group (relaparotomy 0.3 versus primary laparotomy: 0.0; p = 0.002). The overall comprehensive complication index and rates of surgical site infection and wound dehiscence with evisceration were not different between the two groups. At long-term follow-up, rates of incisional hernia did not differ (relaparotomy: n = 12/104 (11.5%); primary laparotomy: n = 7/35 (20.0%); p = 0.208). DISCUSSION: In this first prospective comparison of relaparotomy with primary laparotomy, inadvertent enterotomies were more frequent in the relaparotomy group. However, contrary to previous retrospective studies, the risk of complications and incisional hernias was not increased compared to primary laparotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.

Randomised-controlled feasibility trial on abdominal wall closure techniques in patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001).

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy. METHODS: In this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients' postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques. RESULTS: A total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999). DISCUSSION: Both abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001.

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications. Objective: To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol. Interventions: Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution. Results: Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage after distal pancreatectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains has been common practice in abdominal operations including pancreatic surgery. The PANDRA trial showed that the omission of drains following pancreatic head resection was non-inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reinterventions and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. The aim of the present PANDRA II trial is to evaluate the clinical outcome with versus without prophylactic drain placement after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: The PANDRA II trial is a mono-center, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial with two parallel study groups. In the control group at least one passive intra-abdominal drain is placed at the pancreatic resection margin. In the experimental group no drains are placed. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) measuring all postoperative complications within 90 days. Secondary endpoints are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula, chyle leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, reinterventions and reoperations, surgical site infection, and abdominal fascia dehiscence. Moreover, length of hospital stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the rate of readmission after discharge from hospital (up to day 90 after surgery) are assessed. We will need to analyze 252 patients to test the hypothesis that no drainage is non-inferior to drain placement in terms of the CCI (δ 7.5 points) in a one-sided t test with a one-sided level of significance of 2.5% and a power of 80%. DISCUSSION: The results of the PANDRA II trial will help to evaluate the effect of an omission of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage on the rate of complications after open or minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00013763 . Registered on 6 March 2018.

Pylorus Resection Does Not Reduce Delayed Gastric Emptying After Partial Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (PROPP Study, DRKS00004191).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pylorus resection on postoperative delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). BACKGROUND: PD is the standard treatment for tumors of the pancreatic head. Preservation of the pylorus has been widely accepted as standard procedure. DGE is a common complication causing impaired oral intake, prolonged hospital stay, and postponed further treatment. Recently, pylorus resection has been shown to reduce DGE. METHODS: Patients undergoing PD for any indication at the University of Heidelberg were randomized to either PD with pylorus preservation (PP) or PD with pylorus resection and complete stomach preservation (PR). The primary endpoint was DGE within 30 days according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were randomized to PP and 93 patients to PR. There were no baseline imbalances between the groups. Overall, 53 of 188 patients (28.2%) developed a DGE (grade: A 15.5%; B 8.8%; C 3.3%). In the PP group 24 of 95 patients (25.3%) and in the PR group 29 of 93 patients (31.2%) developed DGE (odds ratio 1.534, 95% confidence interval 0.788 to 2.987; P = 0.208). Higher BMI, indigestion, and intraabdominal major complications were significant risk factors for DGE. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, pylorus resection during PD did not reduce the incidence or severity of DGE. The development of DGE seems to be multifactorial rather than attributable to pyloric dysfunction alone. Pylorus preservation should therefore remain the standard of care in PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004191.

Prospective mixed-methods study of patients undergoing relaparotomy (ReLap study; DRKS00013001).

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing relaparotomies are underrepresented in clinical trials. Standard of care, relative outcomes compared to primary laparotomy, and the ideal fascial closure technique are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The ReLap study has three objectives: First, to determine standard of care and gain evidence of intra-/postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing relaparotomy compared to patients undergoing primary laparotomy. Second, to gain evidence of an association between biomarkers and adhesion grade in a clinical-translational approach in patients undergoing relaparotomy or primary laparotomy. Third, to gain evidence of the feasibility and comparative effectiveness of fascial closure after relaparotomy using the small stitches technique with Monomax 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS 1 loop. METHODS: The ReLap study is a monocentric, prospective, mixed-methods, exploratory study with three steps: health care research, translational research, and randomized controlled trial. All patients scheduled for elective laparotomies or relaparotomies at the University of Heidelberg will be screened for eligibility. There will be five study visits during the hospital stay and one study visit one year after surgery. The clinical course will be followed and outcomes necessary to answer the study objectives will be captured prospectively. Relaparotomy patients eligible for closure with the small and large stitches technique will be randomized intraoperatively to one technique. DISCUSSION: The ReLap study will bridge a significant knowledge gap regarding patients undergoing relaparotomy. Differences in the standard of care between relaparotomies and primary laparotomies will be determined. The relation between biomarkers and manifestation of adhesions will be explored and evidence for the comparative effectiveness of fascial closure after relaparotomy will be gained.

Teres Ligament Patch Reduces Relevant Morbidity After Distal Pancreatectomy (the DISCOVER Randomized Controlled Trial).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of teres ligament covering on pancreatic fistula rate after distal pancreatectomy (DP). BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) represents the most significant complication after DP. Retrospective studies suggested a benefit of covering the resection margin by a teres ligament patch. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study (DISCOVER trial) included 152 patients undergoing DP, between October 2010 and July 2014. Patients were randomized to undergo closure of the pancreatic cut margin without (control, n = 76) or with teres ligament coverage (teres, n = 76). The primary endpoint was the rate of POPF, and the secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable regarding epidemiology (age, sex, body mass index), operative parameters (operation time [OP] time, blood loss, method of pancreas transection, additional operative procedures), and histopathological findings. Overall inhospital mortality was 0.6% (1/152 patients). In the group of patients with teres ligament patch, the rate of reoperations (1.3% vs 13.0%; P = 0.009), and also the rate of readmission (13.1 vs 31.5%; P = 0.011) were significantly lower. Clinically relevant POPF rate (grade B/C) was 32.9% (control) versus 22.4% (teres, P = 0.20). Multivariable analysis showed teres ligament coverage to be a protective factor for clinically relevant POPF (P = 0.0146). CONCLUSIONS: Coverage of the pancreatic remnant after DP is associated with less reinterventions, reoperations, and need for readmission. Although the overall fistula rate is not reduced by the coverage procedure, it should be considered as a valid measure for complication prevention due to its clinical benefit.

[Evidence-based surgery - The Study Center of the German Surgical Society]. / Generierung von Evidenz in der Chirurgie - Das Studienzentrum der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

The Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) assists surgeons to develop research questions and conduct clinical trials. Development (sample size calculation, protocol, funding application), implementation (submission to ethics committee, data management, monitoring) and analysis (statistical analysis, publication) are supported by SDGC specialists such as biometricians and project managers. Currently approximately 4,800 patients have been included in 15 trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses are the basis of valid sample size calculation by aggregating the results of existing studies systematically. In 2005, a work group for the development of systematic reviews has been established at the SDGC. Sixteen publications have so far been completed, and eight more are underway. Using clinical trials and systematic reviews as the fundamental cornerstones in evidence-based medicine, the SDGC has developed an effective network for clinical research in surgery.

Study methods in evidence-based surgery: methodological impediments and suggested approaches for the creation and transfer of knowledge in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since its introduction more than 20 years ago, evidence-based medicine has become an important principle in the daily routine of clinicians around the globe. Nevertheless, many surgical interventions are still not based on high-quality evidence from clinical trials. This is partially due to the fact that surgical trials pose some specific obstacles, which have to be overcome during the planning and conduct of such a trial. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we will highlight specific challenges and discuss explicit obstacles of surgical clinical research. Moreover, potential solutions will be substantiated by the experience of the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) in surgical clinical research. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical researchers should be equipped with a basic knowledge of research methodology to be able to overcome the common impediments posed by surgical trials. Collaborations between surgeons and methodologists as well as trial networks have proven to be useful in accomplishing high-quality surgical research in various randomized controlled trials. By maintaining and refining this work and with sufficient and prompt translation of investigational knowledge into daily practice, the treatment of surgical patients should result in an improved outcome in the future.

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.

Insights into surgical trials: methodological challenges and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Novel surgical methods and procedures used to be introduced by experts and were established depending on the corresponding success that was noted. Surgical trials representing evidence level 1b were and still are called into question for different reasons. Prospective randomized controlled trials comparing various surgical strategies that were conducted over the past 11 years in the clinical trial unit in the department of general, visceral, and transplantation surgery of the University of Heidelberg pointed out problems as well as possible solutions for surgical trials' characteristics. PURPOSE: When planning a study within a department of surgery, several aspects have to be considered. The article aims at outlining pitfalls that have to be dealt with as well as possible solutions by outlining experiences within several conducted trials. CONCLUSIONS: The compilation of solutions announcing the challenges of surgical studies shows that valid high-quality trials are feasible.

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

BACKGROUND: Wound 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/DESIGN: The 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. DISCUSSION: The 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 REGISTRATION: The trial protocol has been registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000390).