Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Nationwide oncological networks for resection of colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands: Differences and postoperative outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Widespread differences in patient demographics and disease burden between hospitals for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have been described. In the Netherlands, networks consisting of at least one tertiary referral centre and several regional hospitals have been established to optimize treatment and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess variation in case-mix, and outcomes between these networks. METHODS: This was a population-based study including all patients who underwent CRLM resection in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019. Variation in case-mix and outcomes between seven networks covering the whole country was evaluated. Differences in case-mix, expected 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) and 30-day mortality between networks were assessed. RESULTS: In total 5383 patients were included. Thirty-day major morbidity was 5.7% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. Significant differences between networks were observed for Charlson Comorbidity Index, ASA 3+, previous liver resection, liver disease, preoperative MRI, preoperative chemotherapy, ≥3 CRLM, diameter of largest CRLM ≥55 mm, major resection, combined resection and ablation, rectal primary tumour, bilobar and extrahepatic disease. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 3.3% and 13.1% for hospitals, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 4.5%. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 4.4% and 6.0% for networks, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 2.5%. No negative outliers were observed after case-mix correction. CONCLUSION: Variation in case-mix and outcomes are considerably smaller on a network level as compared to a hospital level. Therefore, auditing is more meaningful at a network level and collaboration of hospitals within networks should be pursued.

18F-Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy for Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Dutch Cohort Study (PLASTIC).

Importance: The optimal staging for gastric cancer remains a matter of debate. Objective: To evaluate the value of 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in addition to initial staging by means of gastroscopy and CT in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective, observational cohort study included 394 patients with locally advanced, clinically curable gastric adenocarcinoma (≥cT3 and/or N+, M0 category based on CT) between August 1, 2017, and February 1, 2020. Exposures: All patients underwent an FDG-PET/CT and/or SL in addition to initial staging. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of patients in whom the intent of treatment changed based on the results of these 2 investigations. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic performance, number of incidental findings on FDG-PET/CT, morbidity and mortality after SL, and diagnostic delay. Results: Of the 394 patients included, 256 (65%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.6 (10.7) years. A total of 382 patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and 357 underwent SL. Treatment intent changed from curative to palliative in 65 patients (16%) based on the additional FDG-PET/CT and SL findings. FDG-PET/CT detected distant metastases in 12 patients (3%), and SL detected peritoneal or locally nonresectable disease in 73 patients (19%), with an overlap of 7 patients (2%). FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 33% (95% CI, 17%-53%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%) in detecting distant metastases. Secondary findings on FDG/PET were found in 83 of 382 patients (22%), which led to additional examinations in 65 of 394 patients (16%). Staging laparoscopy resulted in a complication requiring reintervention in 3 patients (0.8%) without postoperative mortality. The mean (SD) diagnostic delay was 19 (14) days. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest an apparently limited additional value of FDG-PET/CT; however, SL added considerably to the staging process of locally advanced gastric cancer by detection of peritoneal and nonresectable disease. Therefore, it may be useful to include SL in guidelines for staging advanced gastric cancer, but not FDG-PET/CT.

Case-mix adjustment to compare nationwide hospital performances after resection of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Differences in patient demographics and disease burden can influence comparison of hospital performances. This study aimed to provide a case-mix model to compare short-term postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This retrospective, population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2018 in the Netherlands. Variation in case-mix variables between hospitals and influence on postoperative outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Primary outcomes were 30-day major morbidity and 30-day mortality. Validation of results was performed on the data from 2019. RESULTS: In total, 4639 patients were included in 28 hospitals. Major morbidity was 6.2% and mortality was 1.4%. Uncorrected major morbidity ranged from 3.3% to 13.7% and mortality ranged from 0.0% to 5.0%. between hospitals. Significant differences between hospitals were observed for age higher than 80 (0.0%-17.1%, p < 0.001), ASA 3 or higher (3.3%-36.3%, p < 0.001), histopathological parenchymal liver disease (0.0%-47.1%, p < 0.001), history of liver resection (8.1%-36.3%, p < 0.001), major liver resection (6.7%-38.0%, p < 0.001) and synchronous metastases (35.5%-62.1%, p < 0.001). Expected 30-day major morbidity between hospitals ranged from 6.4% to 11.9% and expected 30-day mortality ranged from 0.6% to 2.9%. After case-mix correction no significant outliers concerning major morbidity and mortality remained. Validation on patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in 2019 affirmed these outcomes. CONCLUSION: Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite to allow for institutional comparison of short-term postoperative outcomes after liver resection for CRLM.

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group.

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

Clinical Outcomes After Unilateral Adrenalectomy for Primary Aldosteronism.

Importance: In addition to biochemical cure, clinical benefits after surgery for primary aldosteronism depend on the magnitude of decrease in blood pressure (BP) and use of antihypertensive medications with a subsequent decreased risk of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular morbidity and drug-induced adverse effects. Objective: To evaluate the change in BP and use of antihypertensive medications within an international cohort of patients who recently underwent surgery for primary aldosteronism. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study was conducted across 16 referral medical centers in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism between January 2010 and December 2016 were included. Data analysis was performed from August 2017 to June 2018. Unilateral disease was confirmed using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or adrenal venous sampling. Patients with missing or incomplete preoperative or follow-up data regarding BP or corresponding number of antihypertensive medications were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical success was defined based on postoperative BP and number of antihypertensive medications. Cure was defined as normotension without antihypertensive medications, and clear improvement as normotension with lower or equal use of antihypertensive medications. In patients with preoperative normotensivity, improvement was defined as postoperative normotension with lower antihypertensive use. All other patients were stratified as no clear success because the benefits of surgery were less obvious, mainly owing to postoperative, persistent hypertension. Clinical outcomes were assessed at follow-up closest to 6 months after surgery. Results: On the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 435 patients (84.6%) from a cohort of 514 patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy were eligible. Of these patients, 186 (42.3%) were women; mean (SD) age at the time of surgery was 50.7 (11.4) years. Cure was achieved in 118 patients (27.1%), clear improvement in 135 (31.0%), and no clear success in 182 (41.8%). In the subgroup classified as no clear success, 166 patients (91.2%) had postoperative hypertension. However, within this subgroup, the mean (SD) systolic and diastolic BP decreased significantly by 9 (22) mm Hg (P < .001) and 3 (15) mm Hg (P = .04), respectively. Also, the number of antihypertensive medications used decreased from 3 (range, 0-7) to 2 (range, 0-6) (P < .001). Moreover, in 75 of 182 patients (41.2%) within this subgroup, the decrease in systolic BP was 10 mm Hg or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, for most patients, adrenalectomy was associated with a postoperative normotensive state and reduction of antihypertensive medications. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients with postoperative, persistent hypertension may benefit from adrenalectomy given the observed clinically relevant and significant reduction of BP and antihypertensive medications.

Colorectal liver metastases: surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. METHODS: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3 cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3 cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). DISCUSSION: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3 cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017.

Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Both mesh and suture repair are used for the treatment of umbilical hernias, but for smaller umbilical hernias (diameter 1-4 cm) there is little evidence whether mesh repair would be beneficial. In this study we aimed to investigate whether use of a mesh was better in reducing recurrence compared with suture repair for smaller umbilical hernias. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled multicentre trial in 12 hospitals (nine in the Netherlands, two in Germany, and one in Italy). Eligible participants were adults aged at least 18 years with a primary umbilical hernia of diameter 1-4 cm, and were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively to either suture repair or mesh repair. In the first 3 years of the inclusion period, blocked randomisation (of non-specified size) was achieved by an envelope randomisation system; after this time computer-generated randomisation was introduced. Patients, investigators, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment, and participants were stratified by hernia size (1-2 cm and >2-4 cm). At study initiation, all surgeons were invited to training sessions to ensure they used the same standardised techniques for suture repair or mesh repair. Patients underwent physical examinations at 2 weeks, and 3, 12, and 24-30 months after the operation. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrences of the umbilical hernia after 24 months assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population by physical examination and, in case of any doubt, abdominal ultrasound. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00789230. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2006, and April 16, 2014, we randomly assigned 300 patients, 150 to mesh repair and 150 to suture repair. The median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 15·5-33·4). After a maximum follow-up of 30 months, there were fewer recurrences in the mesh group than in the suture group (six [4%] in 146 patients vs 17 [12%] in 138 patients; 2-year actuarial estimates of recurrence 3·6% [95% CI 1·4-9·4] vs 11·4% (6·8-18·9); p=0·01, hazard ratio 0·31, 95% CI 0·12-0·80, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 12·8). The most common postoperative complications were seroma (one [<1%] in the suture group vs five [3%] in the mesh group), haematoma (two [1%] vs three [2%]), and wound infection (one [<1%] vs three [2%]). There were no anaesthetic complications or postoperative deaths. INTERPRETATION: This is the first study showing high level evidence for mesh repair in patients with small hernias of diameter 1-4 cm. Hence we suggest mesh repair should be used for operations on all patients with an umbilical hernia of this size. FUNDING: Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent long-term complication after abdominal surgery, with a prevalence greater than 30% in high-risk groups. The aim of the PRIMA trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in high-risk patients, to prevent incisional hernia. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. We included patients aged 18 years or older who were undergoing elective midline laparotomy and had either an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 or higher. We randomly assigned participants using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three treatment groups: primary suture; onlay mesh reinforcement; or sublay mesh reinforcement. The primary endpoint was incidence of incisional hernia during 2 years of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by logistic regression. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761475. FINDINGS: Between March, 2009, and December, 2012, 498 patients were enrolled to the study, of whom 18 were excluded before randomisation. Therefore, we included 480 patients in the primary analysis: 107 were assigned primary suture only, 188 were allocated onlay mesh reinforcement, and 185 were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement. 92 patients were identified with an incisional hernia, 33 (30%) who were allocated primary suture only, 25 (13%) who were assigned onlay mesh reinforcement, and 34 (18%) who were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement (onlay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, OR 0·37, 95% CI 0·20-0·69; p=0·0016; sublay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, 0·55, 0·30-1·00; p=0·05). Seromas were more frequent in patients allocated onlay mesh reinforcement (34 of 188) than in those assigned primary suture (five of 107; p=0·002) or sublay mesh reinforcement (13 of 185; p=0·002). The incidence of wound infection did not differ between treatment groups (14 of 107 primary suture; 25 of 188 onlay mesh reinforcement; and 19 of 185 sublay mesh reinforcement). INTERPRETATION: A significant reduction in incidence of incisional hernia was achieved with onlay mesh reinforcement compared with sublay mesh reinforcement and primary suture only. Onlay mesh reinforcement has the potential to become the standard treatment for high-risk patients undergoing midline laparotomy. FUNDING: Baxter; B Braun Surgical SA.

Systematic review of nonoperative versus operative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the risk of complications between initial nonoperative treatment and appendectomy of uncomplicated (simple) appendicitis in children. METHODS: Systematic literature search. Eligible for inclusion were both and randomized controlled trials and cohort studies including children in which the outcome of nonoperative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis was reported with a minimum follow-up period of one year. Two authors extracted data independently and assessed quality. Primary outcome parameter was the percentage of children experiencing complications. Secondary outcomes were early failures, recurrent appendicitis and appendectomies, for all indications and on request. RESULTS: Five of the 2051 articles screened were eligible for inclusion, including 147 children (nonoperative treatment) and 173 children (appendectomy) with one year follow-up. Percentage of children experiencing complications ranged from 0 to 13% versus 0-17% for nonoperative and appendectomy, respectively. Nonoperative treatment avoided an appendectomy in 62-81% of the children after one year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for initial nonoperative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children is by far insufficient. It suggests that the percentage of patients experiencing complications in the initial nonoperative treatment group is comparable to the appendectomy group, and it may avoid an appendectomy in the large majority of children after one year follow-up. TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015.

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

Short-term results of a randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture with primary glued mesh augmentation to prevent incisional hernia.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is one of the most frequent postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm and patients with a body mass index of 27 or higher have an increased risk to develop incisional hernia. Primary mesh augmentation is a method in which the abdominal wall is strengthened to reduce incisional hernia incidence. This study focused on the short-term results of the PRImary Mesh Closure of Abdominal Midline Wounds trial, a multicenter double blind randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012 patients were included if they were operated via midline laparotomy, and had an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body mass index of 27 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive primary suture, onlay mesh augmentation (OMA), or sublay mesh augmentation. RESULTS: Outcomes represent results after 1-month follow-up. A total of 480 patients were randomized. During analysis, significantly (P = 0.002) more seromas were detected after OMA (n = 34, 18.1%) compared with primary suture (n = 5, 4.7%) and sublay mesh augmentation (n = 13, 7%). No differences were discovered in any of the other outcomes such as surgical site infection, hematoma, reintervention, or readmission. Multivariable analysis revealed an increase in seroma formation after OMA with an odds ratio of 4.3 (P = 0.004) compared with primary suture and an odds ratio of 2.9 (P = 0.003) compared with sublay mesh augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these short-term results, primary mesh augmentation can be considered a safe procedure with only an increase in seroma formation after OMA, but without an increased risk of surgical site infection.

Incisional hernia after liver transplantation: risk factors and health-related quality of life.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after liver transplantation (LT), to determine potential risk factors for their development, and to assess their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients who underwent LT through a J-shaped incision with a minimum follow-up of three months were included. Follow-up was conducted at the outpatient clinic. Short Form 36 (SF-36) and body image questionnaire (BIQ) were used for the assessment of HRQoL. A total of 140 patients was evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33 (SD 20) months. Sixty patients (43%) were diagnosed with an incisional hernia. Multivariate analysis revealed surgical site infection (OR 5.27, p = 0.001), advanced age (OR 1.05, p = 0.003), and prolonged ICU stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.022) to be independent risk factors for development of incisional hernia after LT. Patients with an incisional hernia experienced significantly diminished HRQoL with respect to physical, social, and mental aspects. In conclusion, patients who undergo LT exhibit a high incidence of incisional hernia, which has a considerable impact on HRQoL. Development of incisional hernia was shown to be related to surgical site infection, advanced age, and prolonged ICU stay.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

Meta-analysis of primary mesh augmentation as prophylactic measure to prevent incisional hernia.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) remains one of the most frequent postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. As a consequence, primary mesh augmentation (PMA), a technique to strengthen the abdominal wall, has been gaining popularity. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the prophylactic effect of PMA on the incidence of IH compared to primary suture (PS). METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PMA and PS for closing the abdominal wall after surgery were included. RESULTS: Out of 576 papers, 5 RCTs were selected comprising 346 patients. IH occurred significantly less in the PMA group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52, I(2)0%; p < 0.001). No difference could be observed with regard to wound infection (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39-1.91, I(2) 0%; p = 0.71) or seroma (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64-2.33, I(2) 0%; p = 0.55). A trend was observed for chronic pain in favor of the PS group (RR 5.95, 95% CI 0.74-48.03, I(2)0%; p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: The use of PMA for abdominal wall closure is associated with significantly lower incidence of IH compared to PS.

Long-term outcome study in patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: a comparative study on quality of life, body image, and incisional hernia.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term quality of life and body image of patients with abdominal wound dehiscence were assessed. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with abdominal wound dehiscence from a prospectively followed cohort of 967 patients (2007-2009) were reviewed. Patients completed the Short Form 36 quality of life questionnaire and Body Image Questionnaire and participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. For each patient, four controls were matched by age and gender. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, comorbidity, and follow-up length. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients with abdominal wound dehiscence, 23 were alive after a mean follow-up of 40 months (range 33-49 months). Nineteen patients developed incisional hernias (83 %). Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence reported significantly lower scores for physical and mental component summaries (p = 0.038, p = 0.013), general health (p = 0.003), mental health (p = 0.011), social functioning (p = 0.002), and change (p = 0.034). No differences were found for physical functioning (p = 0.072), role physical (p = 0.361), bodily pain (p = 0.133), vitality (p = 0.150), and role emotional (p = 0.138). Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence reported lower body image scores (median 16.5 vs. 18, p = 0.087), cosmetic scores (median 13 vs. 16, p = 0.047), and total body image scores (median 30 vs. 34, p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, patients with abdominal wound dehiscence demonstrated a high incidence of incisional hernia, low body image, and low quality of life.

Laparoscopic vs. open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Incisional hernia is the most frequent surgical complication after laparotomy. Up to 30% of all patients undergoing laparotomy develop an incisional hernia. OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic vs open ventral incisional hernia repair with regard to postoperative pain and nausea, operative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, hospital admission, and recurrence rate. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial between May 1999 and December 2006 with a mean follow-up period of 35 months. SETTING: All patients were operated on in a clinical setting at 1 of the 2 participating university medical centers or at the other 8 teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred six patients from 10 hospitals were randomized equally to laparoscopic or open mesh repair. Patients with an incisional hernia larger than 3 cm and smaller than 15 cm, either primary or recurrent, were included. Patients were excluded if they had an open abdomen treatment in their medical histories. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic or open ventral incisional hernia repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the trial was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes were use of analgesics, perioperative and postoperative complications, operative time, postoperative nausea, length of hospital stay, recurrence, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: Median blood loss during the operation was significantly less (10 mL vs 50 mL; P = .05) as well as the number of patients receiving a wound drain (3% vs. 45%; P < .001) in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was longer (100 minutes vs. 76 minutes; P = .001). Perioperative complications were significantly higher after laparoscopy (9% vs. 2%). Visual analog scale scores for pain and nausea, completed before surgery and 3 days and 1 and 4 weeks postoperatively, showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. At a mean follow-up period of 35 months, a recurrence rate of 14% was reported in the open group and 18%, in the laparoscopic group (P = .30). The size of the defect was found to be an independent predictor for recurrence (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During the operation, there was less blood loss and less need for a wound drain in the laparoscopic group. However, operative time was longer during laparoscopy. Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Visual analog scores for pain and nausea did not differ between groups. The incidence of a recurrence was similar in both groups. The size of the defect was found to be an independent factor for recurrence of an incisional hernia.

A double blind randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture closure with mesh augmented closure to reduce incisional hernia incidence.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is the most frequently seen long term complication after laparotomy causing much morbidity and even mortality. The overall incidence remains 11-20%, despite studies attempting to optimize closing techniques. Two patient groups, patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and obese patients, have a risk for incisional hernia after laparotomy of more than 30%. These patients might benefit from mesh augmented midline closure as a means to reduce incisional hernia incidence. METHODS/DESIGN: The PRImary Mesh Closure of Abdominal Midline Wound (PRIMA) trial is a double-blinded international multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing running slowly absorbable suture closure with the same closure augmented with a sublay or onlay mesh. Primary endpoint will be incisional hernia incidence 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes will be postoperative complications, pain, quality of life and cost effectiveness.A total of 460 patients will be included in three arms of the study and randomized between running suture closure, onlay mesh closure or sublay mesh closure. Follow-up will be at 1, 3, 12 and 24 months with ultrasound imaging performed at 6 and 24 months to objectify the presence of incisional hernia. Patients, investigators and radiologists will be blinded throughout the whole follow up. DISCCUSION: The use of prosthetic mesh has proven effective and safe in incisional hernia surgery however its use in a prophylactic manner has yet to be properly investigated. The PRIMA trial will provide level 1b evidence whether mesh augmented midline abdominal closure reduces incisional hernia incidence in high risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial.gov NCT00761475.

Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of incisional hernia (IH) on quality of life and body image. METHODS: Open abdominal surgery patients were included in a prospective cohort study performed between 2007 and 2009 in an academic hospital. Main outcomes were incidence of IH after approximately 12 months and Short-Form 36 and body image questionnaire results. RESULTS: There were 374 patients who were examined after a median follow-up period of 16 months (range, 10-24 mo). Seventy-five patients had developed IH (20%); 63 (84%) were symptomatic. Adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score, patients with IH reported significantly lower mean scores for components physical functioning (P = .033), role physical (P = .002), and physical component summary (P = .010). A trend toward significance was found for general health (P = .061). Patients with IH reported significantly lower mean cosmetic scores (P = .002), and body image and total body image scores (both P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IH reported lower mean scores on physical components of health-related quality of life and body image.

Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study.

HYPOTHESIS: Mesh repair is generally preferred for surgical correction of inguinal hernia, although the merits of endoscopic techniques over open surgery are still debated. Herein, minimally invasive total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty (TEP) was compared with Lichtenstein repair to determine if one is associated with less postoperative pain, hypoesthesia, and hernia recurrence. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Academic research. PATIENTS: Six hundred sixty patients were randomized to TEP or Lichtenstein repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary end points were hernia recurrence, operative complications, operating time, length of hospital stay, time to complete recovery, quality of life, chronic pain, and operative costs. RESULTS: At 5 years after surgery, TEP was associated with less chronic pain (P = .004). Impairment of inguinal sensibility was less frequently seen after TEP vs Lichtenstein repair (1% vs 22%, P < .001). Operative complications were more frequent after TEP vs Lichtenstein repair (6% vs 2%, P < .001), while no difference was noted in length of hospital stay. After TEP, patients had faster time to return to daily activities (P < .002) and less absence from work (P = .001). Although operative costs were higher for TEP, total costs were comparable for the 2 procedures, as were overall hernia recurrences at 5 years after surgery. However, among experienced surgeons, significantly lower hernia recurrence rates were seen after TEP (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, TEP was associated with more operative complications, longer operating time, and higher operative costs; however, total costs were comparable for the 2 procedures. Chronic pain and impairment of inguinal sensibility were more frequent after Lichtenstein repair. Although overall hernia recurrence rates were comparable for both procedures, hernia recurrence rates among experienced surgeons were significantly lower after TEP. Patient satisfaction was also significantly higher after TEP. Therefore, TEP should be recommended in experienced hands. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00788554.