Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Long-term clinical experience with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using a ParietexTM composite mesh in severely obese and non-severe obese patients: a single center cohort study.

Background: The treatment of incisional and ventral hernias is associated with significant complications and recurrences, especially in severely obese patients. Recent studies have shown a reduced rate of surgical site infections and length of hospital stay in severely obese patients undergoing a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.Aim: This study aims to describe the clinical experience in terms of efficacy and safety with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using the ParietexTM Composite mesh (Covidien Sofradim Production, Trevoux, France) in severely obese patients (body mass index ≥35) compared with non-severe obese patients in a seven-year single-center cohort.Material and methods: All patients with a primary ventral or incisional hernia admitted to our hospital from 2006 until December 2012 who underwent a laparoscopic repair with the Parietex Composite mesh were included in this study. Pain scores using a numeric rating were collected prospectively 24-48 hours postoperatively. Patient data were retrospectively collected.Results: A total number of 210 patients were included; 173 with a BMI <35 and 37 with a BMI ≥35. Mean follow-up was 31 months. No statistically significant differences were found with regard to operation time, hospital stay, use of analgesics and postoperative complications. The long-term follow up recurrence rate in non-severely obese patients was 13% compared to 16% in severely obese patients (p = .60).Conclusion: Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair using the Parietex Composite mesh is feasible and safe in severely obese patients compared to non-severely obese patients.

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study. METHODS: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores. RESULTS: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P = .005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P = .004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P = .03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P = .99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P = .43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year. RESULTS: The trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR2666.

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

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

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn's disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013).

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

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

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

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS/DESIGN: PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs. DISCUSSION: The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151.

Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs. DISCUSSION: The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2666.

A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves outcome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome. RESULTS: Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P<.001). A total of 208 patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs 64%, P=.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared with patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs 24%, P<.001) and mortality (20% vs 9%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome.

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitis and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitis in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037).

BACKGROUND: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). METHODS/DESIGN: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs. DISCUSSION: The Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR2037.

A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P=0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P=0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P=0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.)

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy improves outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledochocystolithiasis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with choledochocystolithiasis generally undergo endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, many patients receive this surgery 6-8 weeks after ES. There is a high conversion rate of elective LC after ES, and patients can develop recurrent biliary events during the waiting period. We investigated whether the timing of surgery influences outcome. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial of patients with choledochocystolithiasis who underwent successful ES. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received early LC (within 72 hours after ES, n = 49) or delayed LC (after 6-8 weeks, n = 47), based on an expected difference in conversion rate of 25% vs 5%, respectively. Conversion rate, biliary events during follow-up, duration and difficulty of surgeries, postoperative morbidity, and hospital stay were scored. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: Groups were comparable in age, sex, and comorbidity. There was no difference between groups in conversion rate (4.3% in early vs 8.7% in delayed group) nor were there differences in operating times and/or difficulties or hospital stays. During the waiting period for LC, 17 patients in the delayed group (36.2%) developed recurrent biliary events compared with 1 patient in the early group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial to evaluate timing of LC after ES, recurrent biliary events occurred in 36.2% of patients whose LC was delayed for 6-8 weeks. Early LC (within 72 hours) appears to be safe and might prevent the majority of biliary events in this period following sphincterotomy.

Colonic stenting as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized trial (Stent-in 2 study).

BACKGROUND: Acute left-sided colonic obstruction is most often caused by malignancy and the surgical treatment is associated with a high mortality and morbidity rate. Moreover, these operated patients end up with a temporary or permanent stoma. Initial insertion of an enteral stent to decompress the obstructed colon, allowing for surgery to be performed electively, is gaining popularity. In uncontrolled studies stent placement before elective surgery has been suggested to decrease mortality, morbidity and number of colostomies. However stent perforation can lead to peritoneal tumor spill, changing a potentially curable disease in an incurable one. Therefore it is of paramount importance to compare the outcomes of colonic stenting followed by elective surgery with emergency surgery for the management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in a randomized multicenter fashion. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction eligible for this study will be randomized to either emergency surgery (current standard treatment) or colonic stenting as bridge to elective surgery. Outcome measurements are effectiveness and costs of both strategies. Effectiveness will be evaluated in terms of quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Quality of life will be measured with standardized questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR38, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS). Morbidity is defined as every event leading to hospital admission or prolonging hospital stay. Mortality will be analyzed as total mortality as well as procedure-related mortality. The total costs of treatment will be evaluated by counting volumes and calculating unit prices. Including 120 patients on a 1:1 basis will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health scale, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Differences in quality of life and morbidity will be analyzed using mixed-models repeated measures analysis of variance. Mortality will be compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank statistics. DISCUSSION: The Stent-in 2 study is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not colonic stenting as bridge to surgery is to be performed in patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46462267.

Intra- and interindividual variation in gene expression in human adipose tissue.

Adipose tissue is a highly plastic tissue with an important endocrine and metabolic function. To understand its role in human health and disease, it is necessary to understand the extent of variation and the specific differences within and between different depots and subjects. We employed cDNA microarray analysis to investigate this in human subjects ranging from lean to mildly obese. We observe (1) high similarity between different samples of one adipose depot, (2) only small differences between the subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue depot and (3) larger differences in gene expression between different individuals (per depot). The major variation within adipose depots can be attributed to differences in the non-adipocyte component of adipose tissue. Using only non-obese subjects, we identified genes that were consistently differentially expressed between subcutaneous and omental adipose tissue, despite the variation in gene expression between these subjects. Using quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP4), vimentin (Vim), four and a half LIMs domains (FHL1), CD36 (all higher in subcutaneous adipose tissue) and Matrix Gla protein (MGP; lower in subcutaneous adipose tissue) were confirmed to be significantly differentially expressed between depots.