Primary Tumor Resection Before Systemic Therapy in Patients With Colon Cancer and Unresectable Metastases: Combined Results of the SYNCHRONOUS and CCRe-IV Trials.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy is established as primary treatment in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer and unresectable metastases. Data from nonrandomized clinical trials have fueled persistent uncertainty if primary tumor resection (PTR) before chemotherapy prolongs survival. We investigated the prognostic value of PTR in patients with newly diagnosed stage IV colon cancer who were not amenable to curative treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in the multicenter, randomized SYNCHRONOUS and CCRe-IV trials were included in the analysis. Patients with colon cancer with synchronous unresectable metastases were randomly assigned at 100 sites in Austria, Germany, and Spain to undergo PTR or up-front chemotherapy (No PTR group). The chemotherapy regimen was left at discretion of the local team. Patients with tumor-related symptoms, inability to tolerate surgery and/or systemic chemotherapy, and history of another cancer were excluded. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and the analyses were performed with intention-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 393 patients were randomly assigned to undergo PTR (n = 187) or no PTR (n = 206) between November 2011 and March 2017. Chemotherapy was not administered to 6.4% in the No PTR group and 24.1% in the PTR group. The median follow-up time was 36.7 months (95% CI, 36.6 to 37.3). The median OS was 16.7 months (95% CI, 13.2 to 19.2) in the PTR group and 18.6 months (95% CI, 16.2 to 22.3) in the No PTR group (P = .191). Comparable OS between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944 [95% CI, 0.738 to 1.209], P = .65) and across all subgroups. Patients with serious adverse events were more common in the No PTR group (10.2% v 18.0%; P = .027). CONCLUSION: Among patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases, PTR before systemic chemotherapy was not associated with prolonged OS.

Intraoperative visualisation of pancreatic leakage (ViP): study protocol for an IDEAL Stage I Post Market Clinical Study.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic resections are an important field of surgery worldwide to treat a variety of benign and malignant diseases. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a frequent and critical complication after partial pancreatectomy and affects up to 50% of patients. POPF increases mortality, prolongs the postoperative hospital stay and is associated with a significant economic burden. Despite various scientific approaches and clinical strategies, it has not yet been possible to develop an effective preventive tool. The SmartPAN indicator is the first surgery-ready medical device for direct visualisation of pancreatic leakage already during the operation. Applied to the surface of pancreatic tissue, it detects sites of biochemical leak via colour reaction, thereby guiding effective closure and potentially mitigating POPF development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ViP trial is a prospective single-arm, single-centre first in human study to collect data on usability and confirm safety of SmartPAN. A total of 35 patients with planned partial pancreatectomy will be included in the trial with a follow-up of 30 days after the index surgery. Usability endpoints such as adherence to protocol and evaluation by the operating surgeon as well as safety parameters including major intraoperative and postoperative complications, especially POPF development, will be analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Following the IDEAL-D (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long term study of Device development and surgical innovation) framework of medical device development preclinical in vitro, porcine in vivo, and human ex vivo studies have proven feasibility, efficacy and safety of SmartPAN. After market approval, the ViP trial is the IDEAL Stage I trial to investigate SmartPAN in a clinical setting. The study has been approved by the local ethics committee as the device is used exclusively within its intended purpose. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study will provide a basis for a future randomised controlled interventional trial to confirm clinical efficacy of SmartPAN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00027559, registered on 4 March 2022.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to compare postoperative complications between minimally invasive and open DIStal PAnCreaTectomy (DISPACT-2 trial).

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been used with increasing frequency to accelerate patient recovery. Distal pancreatectomy has an overall morbidity rate of 30%-40%. The known advantages of minimally invasive techniques must be rigorously compared with those of open surgery before they can be completely implemented into clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DISPACT-2 is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing minimally invasive (conventional laparoscopic or robotic assisted) with open distal pancreatic resection in patients undergoing elective surgery for benign as well as malign diseases of the pancreatic body and tail. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 294 adult patients will be preoperatively randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary hypothesis is that MIDP is non-inferior to open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity expressed as the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) within 3 months after index operation, with a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 CCI points. Secondary endpoints include pancreas-specific complications, oncological safety and patient reported outcomes. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The DISPACT-2 trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-693/2017). Results of the primary endpoint will be available in 2024 and will be published at national and international meetings. Full results will be made available in an open access, peer-reviewed journal. The website www.dispact.de contains up-to-date information regarding the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00014011.

Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900).

OBJECTIVES: PORTAS-3 was designed to compare the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax in a primary open versus closed strategy for port implantation. BACKGROUND DATA: The implantation strategy for totally implantable venous access ports with the optimal benefit/risk ratio remains unclear. METHODS: PORTAS-3 was a multicentre, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Adult patients with oncological disease scheduled for elective port implantation were randomized to a primary open or closed strategy. Primary endpoint was the rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax. Assuming a difference of 2.5% between the 2 groups, a sample size of 1154 patients was needed to prove superiority of the open group. A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Between November 9, 2014 and September 5, 2016, 1205 patients were randomized. Of these, 1159 (open n = 583; closed n = 576) were finally analyzed. The rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax was significantly reduced with the open strategy [odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.88; P = 0.029]. Operation time was shorter for the closed strategy. Primary success rates, tolerability, morbidity, dose rate of radiation, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: A primary open strategy by cut-down of the cephalic vein, if necessary enhanced by a modified Seldinger technique, reduces the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax after central venous port implantation significantly compared with a closed strategy by primary puncture of the subclavian vein without routine sonographic guidance. Therefore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS 00004900.

No Need for Routine Drainage After Pancreatic Head Resection: The Dual-Center, Randomized, Controlled PANDRA Trial (ISRCTN04937707).

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

CoCStom trial: study protocol for a randomised trial comparing completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy after early versus late diverting stoma closure in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports a diverting stoma in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer as it reduces clinical severity of anastomotic leakage. However, relevant stoma morbidity after rectal cancer surgery exists and has a significant impact on quality of life. Moreover, a diverting stoma has an influence on completeness of chemotherapy but it remains unclear in which way. There is no evidence regarding optimal timing for stoma closure in relation to adjuvant chemotherapy. Two randomised controlled trials have studied early stoma closure after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer, one of them showing that early closure around day 8 after resection is possible without increasing morbidity. METHODS/DESIGN: CoCStom is a randomised multicentre trial comparing completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy as primary endpoint after early (8-10 days after resection, before starting adjuvant therapy) versus late (~26 weeks after resection and completion of adjuvant therapy) stoma closure in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection after neoadjuvant therapy. After exclusion of post-operative anastomotic leakage 257 patients from 30 German hospitals are planned to be included in order to assure a power of 80% for the confirmatory analysis of at least 214 evaluable cases. An absolute increase of 20% for the rate of completely administered adjuvant chemotherapy is regarded as a clinically meaningful step forward and serves as basis for sample size calculation. Quality of life, stoma-related complications, individual completeness of chemotherapy rate, percentage of patients stopping adjuvant therapy or undergoing dose modifications or delay, oncological outcomes, cumulative days of hospitalisation and number of readmissions, rate of symptomatic anastomotic leaks after stoma closure, mortality, post-operative complications and toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy are secondary endpoints. DISCUSSION: The CoCStom trial aims to clarify optimal timing of stoma closure in the context of adjuvant chemotherapy. Depending on the results of the trial, patients could benefit either from early or late stoma closure in regard to long term oncological survival due to a higher rate of completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment and thus better effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00005113. Registered 28 August 2013.

[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.

Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy--a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.

HAnd Suture Versus STApling for Closure of Loop Ileostomy (HASTA Trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the HASTA trial was to compare hand suture versus stapling loop ileostomy closure in a randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Bowel obstruction is one of the main and the clinically and economically most relevant complication following closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. The best surgical technique for closure of loop ileostomy has not been defined yet. METHODS: HASTA trial is a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled surgical trial with 2 parallel groups to compare hand suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy. The primary endpoint was the rate of bowel obstruction within 30 days after ileostomy closure. RESULTS: A total of 337 randomized patients undergoing closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection because of rectal cancer in 27 centers were included. The overall rate of postoperative ileus after ileostomy closure was 13.4%. Seventeen of 165 (10.3%) patients in the stapler group and 27 of 163 (16.6%) in the hand suture group developed bowel obstruction within 30 days postoperatively [odds ratio (OR) = 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-3.31 = 0.10]. Duration of surgical intervention was significantly shorter in the stapler group (15 minutes; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis of potential risk factors did not reveal any significant correlation with development of postoperative ileus. Rate of anastomotic leakage (stapler: 3.0%, hand suture: 1.8%, P = 0.48) did not differ significantly as well as all other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapler ileo-ileostomy for ileostomy closure are equally effective in terms of postoperative bowel obstruction, with stapler anastomosis leading to a shorter operation time. Postoperative ileus after ileostomy reversal remains a relevant complication.

[Assessing the effectiveness of medical devices in patient-oriented surgical research]. / Die Nutzenbewertung von Medizinprodukten in der chirurgischen, patientenorientierten Forschung.

Surgery depends on the application of therapeutic procedures that are based on scientific evidence. It legitimises its claim in patient care through operations with proven benefit consisting of cure or improvement of symptoms. Moreover, clinical research and evaluation of surgical technique, strategy and innovation is closely entangled with medical devices. These surgical trials are regulated beyond the German drug and medical devices law, but scientific and ethical rules still follow the principles of clinical epidemiology and evidence-based medicine. Standardisation of surgical and perioperative care is the inevitable prerequisite in clinical trials to define and to evaluate effectiveness of surgical devices. The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society has established an efficient infrastructure for such trials in Germany and is working to refine the scientific methodology in order to improve the current basis of evidence. (As supplied by publisher).

Design and current status of CONTINT: continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy - a randomized controlled multicenter trial [NCT00544583].

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for abdominal wall closure has been an issue of ongoing debate. Available studies do not specifically enroll patients who undergo emergency laparotomy and thus do not consider the distinct biological characteristics of these patients. The present randomized controlled trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS/DESIGN: The CONTINT trial is a multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial with a two-group parallel design. Patients undergoing a primary emergency midline laparotomy are enrolled in the trial. The two most commonly applied strategies of abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy are compared: the continuous, all-layer suture technique using slowly absorbable monofilament material (two Monoplus loops) and the interrupted suture technique using rapidly absorbable braided material (Vicryl sutures). The primary endpoint within the CONTINT trial is an incisional hernia within 12 months or a burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery. As reliable data on this primary endpoint is not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, an adaptive interim analysis will be conducted after the inclusion of 80 patients, allowing early termination of the trial if necessary or modification of design characteristics such as recalculation of sample size. DISCUSSION: This is a randomized controlled multicenter trial with a two-group parallel design to assess the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary emergency midline laparotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00544583.

Pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreatojejunostomy for RECOnstruction after partial PANCreatoduodenectomy (RECOPANC): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial UTN U1111-1117-9588.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is one of the most complex abdominal operations, usually performed for tumors of the periampullary region and chronic pancreatitis. Leakage of pancreatic juice from the pancreatoenteric anastomosis, called postoperative pancreatic fistula, is the most prominent postoperative complication. Retrospective studies show a significant reduction of fistula rates with pancreatogastrostomy as compared to pancreatojejunostomy, the most frequently employed method of pancreatoenterostomy. Most single-center prospective trials, however, have not validated this finding. A large multicenter trial is needed for clarification. METHODS/DESIGN: RECOPANC is a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial with two treatment arms, pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreatojejunostomy. The trial hypothesis is that postoperative pancreatic fistula rate is lower after pancreatogastrostomy when compared to pancreatojejunostomy. Fourteen academic centers for pancreatic surgery will participate to allocate 360 patients to the trial. The duration of the entire trial is four years including prearrangement and analyses. DISCUSSION: Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the main reason for clinically important postoperative morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy. The primary goal of the chosen reconstruction technique for pancreatoenteric anastomosis is to minimize postoperative fistula rate. A randomized trial performed at multiple high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery is the best opportunity to investigate one of the most crucial issues in pancreatic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00000767 (2011/03/23), FSI 2011/05/31. Universal Trial Number U1111-1117-9588.

Resection of the primary tumour versus no resection prior to systemic therapy in patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases (UICC stage IV): SYNCHRONOUS--a randomised controlled multicentre trial (ISRCTN30964555).

BACKGROUND: Currently, it remains unclear, if patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases who present without severe symptoms should undergo resection of the primary tumour prior to systemic chemotherapy. Resection of the primary tumour may be associated with significant morbidity and delays the beginning of chemotherapy. However, it may prevent local symptoms and may, moreover, prolong survival as has been demonstrated in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It is the aim of the present randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of primary tumour resection prior to systemic chemotherapy to prolong survival in patients with newly diagnosed colon cancer who are not amenable to curative therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: The SYNCHRONOUS trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial with a two-group parallel design. Colon cancer patients with synchronous unresectable metastases are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria are primary tumour-related symptoms, inability to tolerate surgery and/or systemic chemotherapy and history of another primary cancer. Resection of the primary tumour as well as systemic chemotherapy is provided according to the standards of the participating institution. The primary endpoint is overall survival that is assessed with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. Furthermore, it is the objective of the trial to assess the safety of both treatment strategies as well as quality of life. DISCUSSION: The SYNCHRONOUS trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of primary tumour resection before beginning of systemic chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30964555.

Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: The ideal closure technique of the pancreas after distal pancreatectomy is unknown. We postulated that standardised closure with a stapler device would prevent pancreatic fistula more effectively than would a hand-sewn closure of the remnant. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel group-sequential superiority trial was done in 21 European hospitals. Patients with diseases of the pancreatic body and tail undergoing distal pancreatectomy were eligible and were randomly assigned by central randomisation before operation to either stapler or hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant. Surgical performance was assessed with intraoperative photo documentation. The primary endpoint was the combination of pancreatic fistula and death until postoperative day 7. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. Interim and final analysis were by intention to treat in all patients in whom a left resection was done. This trial is registered, ISRCTN18452029. FINDINGS: Between Nov 16, 2006, and July 3, 2009, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (221 stapler; 229 hand-sewn closure), of whom 352 patients (177 stapler, 175 hand-sewn closure) were analysed. Pancreatic fistula rate or mortality did not differ between stapler (56 [32%] of 177) and hand-sewn closure (49 [28%] of 175; OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·53­1·33; p=0·56). One patient died within the fi rst 7 days after surgery in the hand-sewn group; no deaths occurred in the stapler group. Serious adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Stapler closure did not reduce the rate of pancreatic fistula compared with hand-sewn closure for distal pancreatectomy. New strategies, including innovative surgical techniques, need to be identified to reduce this adverse outcome. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Open reduction and internal fixation versus casting for highly comminuted and intra-articular fractures of the distal radius (ORCHID): protocol for a randomized clinical multi-center trial.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal radius represent the most common fracture in elderly patients, and often indicate the onset of symptomatic osteoporosis. A variety of treatment options is available, including closed reduction and plaster casting, K-wire-stabilization, external fixation and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with volar locked plating. The latter is widely promoted by clinicians and hardware manufacturers. Closed reduction and cast stabilization for six weeks is a simple, convenient, and ubiquitously available intervention. In contrast, ORIF requires hospitalization, but allows for functional rehabilitation.Given the lack of randomized controlled trials, it remains unclear whether ORIF leads to better functional outcomes one year after injury than closed reduction and casting. METHODS/DESIGN: ORCHID (Open reduction and internal fixation versus casting for highly comminuted intra-articular fractures of the distal radius) is a pragmatic, randomized, multi-center, clinical trial with two parallel treatment arms. It is planned to include 504 patients in 15 participating centers throughout Germany over a three-year period. Patients are allocated by a central web-based randomization tool.The primary objective is to determine differences in the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) between volar locked plating and closed reduction and casting of intraarticular, comminuted distal radius fractures in patients > 65 years of age one year after the fracture. Secondary outcomes include differences in other SF-36 dimensions, the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) instrument. Also, the range of motion in the affected wrist, activities of daily living, complications (including secondary ORIF and revision surgery), as well as serious adverse events will be assessed. Data obtained during the trial will be used for later health-economic evaluations. The trial architecture involves a central statistical unit, an independent monitoring institute, and a data safety monitoring board. Following approval by the institutional review boards of all participating centers, conduct and reporting will strictly adhere to national and international rules, regulations, and recommendations (e.g., Good Clinical Practice, data safety laws, and EQUATOR/CONSORT proposals). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, ORCHID is the first multicenter RCT designed to assess quality of life and functional outcomes following operative treatment compared to conservative treatment of complex, intra-articular fractures of the distal radius in elderly patients. The results are expected to influence future treatment recommendations and policies on an international level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN76120052 Registration date: 31.07.2008; Randomization of first patient: 15.09.2008.

Hand-suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy: HASTA-Trial: a study rationale and design for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second most common tumor in developed countries, with a lifetime prevalence of 5%. About one third of these tumors are located in the rectum. Surgery in terms of low anterior resection with mesorectal excision is the central element in the treatment of rectal cancer being the only option for definite cure. Creating a protective diverting stoma prevents complications like anastomotic failure and meanwhile is the standard procedure. Bowel obstruction is one of the main and the clinically and economically most relevant complication following closure of loop ileostomy. The best surgical technique for closure of loop ileostomy has not been defined yet. METHODS/DESIGN: A study protocol was developed on the basis of the only randomized controlled mono-center trial to solve clinical equipoise concerning the optimal surgical technique for closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection due to rectal cancer.The HASTA trial is a multi-center pragmatic randomized controlled surgical trial with two parallel groups to compare hand-suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy. It will include 334 randomized patients undergoing closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection with protective ileostomy due to rectal cancer in approximately 20 centers consisting of German hospitals of all level of health care. The primary endpoint is the rate of bowel obstruction within 30 days after ileostomy closure. In addition, a set of surgical and general variables including quality of life will be analyzed with a follow-up of 12 months. An investigators meeting with a practical session will help to minimize performance bias and enforce protocol adherence. Centers are monitored centrally as well as on-site before and during recruitment phase to assure inclusion, treatment and follow up according to the protocol. DISCUSSION: Aim of the HASTA trial is to evaluate the efficacy of hand-suture versus stapling for closure of loop ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register Number: DRKS00000040.

Perioperative management in distal pancreatectomy: results of a survey in 23 European participating centres of the DISPACT trial and a review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant treatment in addition to intervention may influence the primary outcome, especially in complex interventions such as surgical trials. Evidence-based standards for perioperative care after distal pancreatectomy, however, have been rarely defined. This study's objective was therefore to identify and analyse the current basis of evidence for perioperative management in distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: A standardised questionnaire was sent to 23 European centres recruiting patients for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on open distal pancreatectomy that would compare suture versus stapler closure of the pancreatic remnant (DISPACT trial, ISRCTN 18452029). Perioperative strategies (e.g., bowel preparation, pain management, administration of antibiotics, abdominal incision, drainages, nasogastric tubes, somatostatin, mobilisation and feeding regimens) were assessed. Moreover, a systematic literature search in the Medline database was performed and retrieved meta-analyses and RCTs were reviewed. RESULTS: All 23 centres returned the questionnaire. Consensus for thoracic epidural catheters (TECs), pain treatment and transverse incisions was found, as well as strong consensus for the placement of intra-abdominal drainages and perioperative single-shot antibiotics. Also, there was consensus that bowel preparation, somatostatin application, postoperative nasogastric tubes and intravenous feeding might not be beneficial. The literature search identified 16 meta-analyses and 19 RCTs demonstrating that bowel preparation, somatostatin therapy and nasogastric tubes can be omitted. Early mobilisation, feeding and TECs seem to be beneficial for patients. The value of drainages remains unclear. CONCLUSION: Most perioperative standards within the centres participating in the DISPACT trial are in accordance with current available evidence. The need for drainages requires further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 18452029.