Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) compared with conventional pancreatic transection in distal pancreatectomy: study protocol for the randomised controlled CUSA-1 pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common and serious complication after distal pancreatectomy. Many attempts at lowering fistula rates have led to unrewarding insignificant results as still up to 30% of the patients suffer from clinically relevant POPF. Therefore, the development of new innovative methods and procedures is still a cornerstone of current surgical research.The cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) device is a well-known ultrasound-based parenchyma transection method, often used in liver and neurosurgery which has not yet been thoroughly investigated in pancreatic surgery, but the first results seem very promising. METHODS: The CUSA-1 trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial with two parallel study groups. This single-centre trial is assessor and patient blinded. A total of 60 patients with an indication for open distal pancreatectomy will be intraoperatively randomised after informed consent. The patients will be randomly assigned to either the control group with conventional pancreas transection (scalpel or stapler) or the experimental group, with transection using the CUSA device. The primary safety endpoint of this trial will be postoperative complications ≥grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint to investigate the effect will be the rate of POPF within 30 days postoperatively according to the ISGPS definition. Further perioperative outcomes, including postpancreatectomy haemorrhage, length of hospital stay and mortality will be analysed as secondary endpoints. DISCUSSION: Based on the available literature, CUSA may have a beneficial effect on POPF occurrence after distal pancreatectomy. The rationale of the CUSA-1 pilot trial is to investigate the safety and feasibility of the CUSA device in elective open distal pancreatectomy compared with conventional dissection methods and gather the first data on the effect on POPF occurrence. This data will lay the groundwork for a future confirmatory multicentre randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CUSA-1 trial protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (No. S-098/2022). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and summaries will be provided in lay language to study participants and their relatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00027474.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial.

Background: Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice. Methods: This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407). Findings: Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD. Interpretation: In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. Funding: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Intraoperative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Laparotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial by CHIR-Net.

Importance: Surgical site infections frequently occur after open abdominal surgery. Intraoperative wound irrigation as a preventive measure is a common practice worldwide, although evidence supporting this practice is lacking. Objective: To evaluate the preventive effect of intraoperative wound irrigation with polyhexanide solution. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Intraoperative Wound Irrigation to Prevent Surgical Site Infection After Laparotomy (IOWISI) trial was a multicenter, 3-armed, randomized clinical trial. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention. The clinical trial was conducted in 12 university and general hospitals in Germany from September 2017 to December 2021 with 30-day follow-up. Adult patients undergoing laparotomy were eligible for inclusion. The main exclusion criteria were clean laparoscopic procedures and the inability to provide consent. Of 11 700 screened, 689 were included and 557 completed the trial; 689 were included in the intention-to-treat and safety analysis. Interventions: Randomization was performed online (3:3:1 allocation) to polyhexanide 0.04%, saline, or no irrigation (control) of the operative wound before closure. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was surgical site infection within 30 postoperative days according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Results: Among the 689 patients included, 402 were male and 287 were female. The median (range) age was 65.9 (18.5-94.9) years. Participants were randomized to either wound irrigation with polyhexanide (n = 292), saline (n = 295), or no irrigation (n = 102). The procedures were classified as clean contaminated in 92 cases (8%). The surgical site infection incidence was 11.8% overall (81 of 689), 10.6% in the polyhexanide arm (31 of 292), 12.5% in the saline arm (37 of 295), and 12.8% in the no irrigation arm (13 of 102). Irrigation with polyhexanide was not statistically superior to no irrigation or saline irrigation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 0.64-2.36 vs HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.74-1.94; P = .47). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ among the 3 groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, intraoperative wound irrigation with polyhexanide solution did not reduce surgical site infection incidence in clean-contaminated open abdominal surgical procedures compared to saline or no irrigation. More clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the potential benefit in contaminated and septic procedures, including the emergency setting. Trial Registration: drks.de Identifier: DRKS00012251.

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.

Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583].

BACKGROUND: High-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS/DESIGN: CONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: From August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04-1.32). CONCLUSION: This RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique.

Protocol of a prospective study investigating the association of PAncreatic parenchymal RISk factors with postoperative pancreatic fistula after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PARIS trial).

INTRODUCTION: Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for many malignant and benign diseases of the pancreatic head. Postoperative complication rates of up to 40% are regularly reported. One of the most common and potentially life-threatening complication is the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Parenchymal risk factors like main pancreatic duct diameter or texture of the pancreatic gland have already been identified in retrospective studies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of parenchymal risk factors on POPF in a prospective manner. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All patients scheduled for elective PD at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery of the University of Heidelberg will be screened for eligibility. As diagnostic factors, diameter and texture of the pancreatic gland as well as radiological and histopathological features will be recorded. Furthermore, the new four class risk classification system by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) will be recorded. The postoperative course will be monitored prospectively. The primary endpoint will be the association of the main pancreatic duct size and the texture of the pancreatic gland on POPF according to the updated ISGPS definition. The diagnostic value of the above-mentioned factors for POPF will be evaluated in a univariable and multivariable analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PARIS is a monocentric, prospective, diagnostic study to evaluate the association of parenchymal risk factors and the development of POPF approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-344/2019). Results will be available in 2022 and will be published at national and international meetings. With this knowledge, the intraoperative and perioperative decision-making process could be eased and improve the individual outcome of patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00017184.

Effect of triclosan-coated sutures for abdominal wound closure on the incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence: a protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) or burst abdomen is a severe complication after abdominal surgery with an incidence up to 3.8%. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the biggest risk factor for the development of AWD. It is strongly suggested that the use of triclosan-coated sutures (TCS) for wound closure reduces the risk of SSI. We hypothesise that the use of TCS for abdominal wound closure may reduce the risk of AWD. Current randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lack power to investigate this. Therefore, the purpose of this individual participant data meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of TCS for abdominal wound closure on the incidence of AWD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs investigating the effect of TCS compared with non-coated sutures for abdominal wound closure in adult participants scheduled for open abdominal surgery. Two independent reviewers will assess eligible studies for inclusion and methodological quality. Authors of eligible studies will be invited to collaborate and share individual participant data. The primary outcome will be AWD within 30 days after surgery requiring reoperation. Secondary outcomes include SSI, all-cause reoperations, length of hospital stay and all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery. Data will be analysed with a one-step approach, followed by a two-step approach. In the one-step approach, treatment effects will be estimated as a risk ratio with corresponding 95% CI in a generalised linear mixed model framework with a log link and binomial distribution assumption. The quality of evidence will be judged using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical ethics committee of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC in the Netherlands waived the necessity for a formal approval of this study, as this research does not fall under the Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act. Collaborating investigators will deidentify data before sharing. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019121173.

Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach. PURPOSE: This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

Meta-analysis of primary open versus closed cannulation strategy for totally implantable venous access port implantation.

BACKGROUND: There is still no reference standard for the implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). A recently published multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) revealed a significantly greater risk of pneumothorax after closed cannulation than after an open strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide an update of the available evidence for the safety and effectiveness of primary open versus closed cannulation strategy. METHODS: RCTs comparing outcomes of open cut-down of the cephalic vein and closed cannulation of the subclavian vein were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pneumothorax. A beta-binominal model was applied to combine the respective outcomes, and results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Six RCTs with a total of 1831 patients were included in final analysis. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant superiority of the open cut-down technique regarding pneumothorax (OR 0.308, 95% CI 0.122 to 0.776), but a statistically significant higher failure of the primary technique for the open cut-down technique than for closed cannulation (OR 2.364, 95% CI 1.051 to 5.315). There were no significant differences between the two procedures regarding other morbidity endpoints. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows a general superiority of open cut-down of the cephalic vein over closed cannulation of the subclavian vein regarding the occurrence of pneumothorax. Open cut-down should be the first-line approach for TIVAP implantation. Closed cannulation should be performed with ultrasound as second-line procedure if the open technique fails. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013005180.

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.

Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.

Pancreatic resection with perioperative drug repurposing of propranolol and etodolac: trial protocol of the phase-II randomised placebo controlled PROSPER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related death in developed countries. Despite advances in systemic chemotherapy, the mainstay of curative therapy for non-metastatic disease is surgical resection. However, the perioperative period is characterised by stress and inflammatory reactions that can contribute to metastatic spread and disease recurrence. Catecholamines and prostaglandins play a crucial role in these reactions. Therefore, a drug repurposing of betablockers and cyclooxygenase inhibitors seems reasonable to attenuate tumour-associated inflammation by inhibiting psychological, surgical and inflammatory stress responses. This may cause a relevant antitumourigenic and antimetastatic effect during the perioperative period, a window for cancer-directed therapy that is currently largely unexploited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective, single-centre, two-arm randomised, patient and observer blinded, placebo-controlled, phase-II trial evaluating safety and feasibility of combined perioperative treatment with propranolol and etodolac in adult patients with non-metastatic cancer of the pancreatic head undergoing elective pancreatoduodenectomy. 100 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria will be randomised to perioperative treatment for 25 days perioperatively with a combination of propranolol and etodolac or placebo. Primary outcome of interest will be safety in terms of serious adverse events and reactions within 3 months. Furthermore, adherence to trial medication will be assessed as feasibility outcomes. Preliminary efficacy data will be evaluated for the purpose of power calculation for a potential subsequent phase-III trial. The clinical trial is accompanied by a translational study investigating the mechanisms of action of the combined therapy on a molecular basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PROSPER-trial has been approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (reference number 4042875) and the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (reference number AFmo-385/2018). The final trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at appropriate national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00014054; EudraCT number: 2018-000415-25.

Protocol of a randomised controlled phase II clinical trial investigating PREoperative endoscopic injection of BOTulinum toxin into the sphincter of Oddi to reduce postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: the PREBOTPilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is still the most frequently occurring and clinically relevant complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP). Preoperative endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin (BTX) into the sphincter of Oddi represents an innovative approach to prevent POPF. The aim of this project (PREBOTPilot) is to generate the first randomised controlled trial data on the safety, feasibility and efficacy of preoperative endoscopic BTX injection into the sphincter of Oddi to prevent clinically relevant POPF following DP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PREBOTPilot is an investigator-initiated, single-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label, phase II clinical trial with two parallel study groups and an exploratory study design. 60 patients scheduled for DP will be randomised to intervention and control group. In the intervention group, patients will undergo preoperative endoscopic injection of BTX into the sphincter of Oddi, whereas in the control group no preoperative endoscopy will be performed. The combined primary endpoint is the occurrence of clinically relevant POPF and/or death within 30 days after DP. The secondary endpoints comprise further postoperative outcome parameters and quality of life up to 3 months after DP as well as safety and feasibility of the procedure. Statistical analysis is based on the modified intention-to-treat population, excluding patients without status post DP. For safety analysis, rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs will be calculated with 95% CIs for group comparisons. ETHICS, FUNDING AND DISSEMINATION: PREBOTPilot has been approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (reference number 4043654) and the Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number AFmo-523/2019). This trial is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The results of the trial will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00020401.

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.

Sedation-related complications during anesthesiologist-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) require adequate sedation or general anesthesia. To date, there is lack of consensus regarding who should administer sedation in these patients. Several studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered sedation for ERCP; however, data regarding anesthesiologist-administered sedation remain limited. This prospective single-center study investigated the safety and efficacy of anesthesiologist-administered sedation and the rate of successful performed ERCP procedures. METHODS: The study included 200 patients who underwent ERCP following anesthesiologist-administered sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Procedural data, oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate, recovery score, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, as well as 30-day mortality and morbidity data were analyzed. RESULTS: Sedation-related complications occurred in 36 of 200 patients (18%) and included hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (O2 saturation < 90%) in 18 patients (9%) each. Most events were minor and did not necessitate discontinuation of the procedure. However, ERCP was terminated in 2 patients (1%) secondary to sedation-related complications. Successful cannulation was performed in all patients. The mean duration of the examination was 25 ± 16 min. Mean recovery time was 14 ± 10 min, and high post-procedural satisfaction was observed in both, patients (mean visual analogue scale [VAS] 9.6 ± 0.8) and endoscopists (mean VAS 9.3 ± 1.3). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that anesthesiologist-administered sedation is safe in patients undergoing ERCP and is associated with a high rate of successful ERCP, shorter procedure time, and more rapid post-anesthesia recovery, with high patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

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.

Intraoperative evaluation of hepatic artery blood flow during pancreatoduodenectomy (HEPARFLOW): Protocol of an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the treatment of choice for a range of benign and malignant diseases. The pancreatic head must be separated from its supplying vessels, especially the gastroduodenal artery, during this operation. However, dissection of the gastroduodenal artery can disturb blood supply to the liver and result in liver ischemia. There is currently no well-established algorithm to evaluate and ensure sufficient blood flow in patients with altered hepatic artery blood flow. To address this important issue, this study aims to establish a basis for assessing liver blood supply during pancreatoduodenectomy. Furthermore, factors influencing arterial blood flow and related postoperative complications will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HEPARFLOW study is a single institutional single-arm prospective exploratory observational clinical trial. All consecutive patients undergoing elective partial or total pancreatoduodenectomy will be screened for inclusion until 100 patients are enrolled. Blood flow in the proper hepatic artery, gastroduodenal artery, portal vein, and additional vessels supplying the liver will be measured during pancreatoduodenectomy using Doppler flowmetry. All patients will be followed up for 90 days after surgery. At each visit, standard clinical data, postoperative complications and mortality will be recorded. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to prospectively assess intraoperative flow rates of the hepatic artery and portal vein to evaluate liver blood supply during pancreatoduodenectomy. The preoperative and intraoperative factors influencing blood flow in the hepatic arteries will be identified. This study may also reveal the hemodynamic and clinical relevance of a compression of the celiac axis during pancreatoduodenectomy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg (S-073/2018). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at medical meetings.