Incidence and treatment of local site recurrences following RFA of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who are ineligible for curative surgery are potential candidates for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Although RFA has emerged as a well accepted and documented treatment modality, there are still some reservations because of initially high rates of local site recurrences (LSR). The aim of the present study was to evaluate LSR levels following RFA treatment, with a specific focus on re-treatment and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients ineligible for curative resection of CRLM and undergoing RFA alone or in combination with resection were prospectively included from July 2000 to December 2010 and retrospectively analyzed. Patients with untreatable extrahepatic disease were excluded. FDG PET-CT was conducted at 3-6 month intervals after RFA. Patients with LSR were evaluated for re-treatment. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients were treated with RFA, which was combined with resection in 64 patients. A total of 290 lesions were ablated, with a mean number of 2.19 per patient and a mean size of 2.2 cm. Median survival was 41 months, with a 3- and 5-year survival of, respectively, 60 and 30.8 %. Following initial RFA, 39 patients developed an LSR in 40 ablated lesions, and local recurrence was strongly related to lesion size. Re-treatment could be performed in 26/39 patients, of whom eight remained disease-free. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation can be applied to CRLM of less than 3 cm with curative intent. In the absence of extensive intrahepatic or extrahepatic disease, renewed treatment of local recurrences should be considered and is often successful.

Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is regarded as the only curative option for resectable oesophageal cancer, but pulmonary complications occurring in more than half of patients after open oesophagectomy are a great concern. We assessed whether minimally invasive oesophagectomy reduces morbidity compared with open oesophagectomy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at five study centres in three countries between June 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011. Patients aged 18-75 years with resectable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open transthoracic or minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, and investigators undertaking interventions, assessing outcomes, and analysing data, were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was pulmonary infection within the first 2 weeks after surgery and during the whole stay in hospital. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 56 patients to the open oesophagectomy group and 59 to the minimally invasive oesophagectomy group. 16 (29%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in the first 2 weeks compared with five (9%) in the minimally invasive group (relative risk [RR] 0·30, 95% CI 0·12-0·76; p=0·005). 19 (34%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in-hospital compared with seven (12%) in the minimally invasive group (0·35, 0·16-0·78; p=0·005). For in-hospital mortality, one patient in the open oesophagectomy group died from anastomotic leakage and two in the minimally invasive group from aspiration and mediastinitis after anastomotic leakage. INTERPRETATION: These findings provide evidence for the short-term benefits of minimally invasive oesophagectomy for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. FUNDING: Digestive Surgery Foundation of the Unit of Digestive Surgery of the VU University Medical Centre.

Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial).

BACKGROUND: There is a rise in incidence of esophageal carcinoma due to increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma. Probably the only curative option to date is the use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. Traditional open esophageal resection is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Furthermore, this approach involves long intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay and long recovery period. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce the morbidity and accelerate the post-operative recovery. METHODS/DESIGN: Comparison between traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a multi-center, randomized trial. Patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal junction tumors (Siewert I) are eligible for inclusion. Prior thoracic surgery and cervical esophageal carcinoma are indications for exclusion. The surgical technique involves a right thoracotomy with lung blockade and laparotomy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis for the traditional group. The minimally invasive procedure involves a right thoracoscopy in prone position with a single lumen tube and laparoscopy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis. All patients in both groups will undergo identical pre-operative and post-operative protocol. Primary endpoint of this study are post-operative respiratory complications within the first two post-operative weeks confirmed by clinical, radiological and sputum culture data. Secondary endpoints are the operative data, the post-operative data and oncological data such as quality of the specimen and survival. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to open procedure. Post-operative data include morbidity (major and minor), quality of life tests and hospital stay.Based on current literature and the experience of all participating centers, an incidence of pulmonary complications for 57% in the traditional arm and 29% in the minimally invasive arm, it is estimated that per arm 48 patients are needed. This is based on a two-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Knowing that approximately 20% of the patients will be excluded, we will randomize 60 patients per arm. DISCUSSION: The TIME-trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized study to define the role of minimally invasive esophageal resection in patients with resectable intrathoracic and junction esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION (NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTER): NTR2452.

Laparoscopic versus open sigmoid resection for diverticular disease: follow-up assessment of the randomized control Sigma trial.

BACKGROUND: The short-term results of the Sigma trial show that laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) used electively for diverticular disease offers advantages over open sigmoid resection (OSR). This study aimed to compare the overall mortality and morbidity rates after evaluation of the clinical outcomes at the 6-month follow-up evaluation. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized control trial, eligible patients were randomized to either LSR or OSR. The short-term results and methodologic details have been published previously. Follow-up evaluation was performed at the outpatient clinic 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: In this trial, 104 patients were randomized for either LSR or OSR, and the conversion rate was 19.2%. The LSR approach was associated with short-term benefits such as a 15.4% reduction in the major complications rate, less pain, and a shorter hospital stay at the cost of a longer operating time. At the 6-month follow-up evaluation, no significant differences in morbidity or mortality rates were found. Two patients died of cardiac causes (overall mortality, 3%). Late complications (7 LSR vs. 12 OSR; p = 0.205) consisted of three incisional hernias, five small bowel obstructions, four enterocutaneous fistulas, one intraabdominal abscess, one retained gauze, two anastomotic strictures, and three recurrent episodes of diverticulitis. Nine of these patients underwent additional surgical interventions. Consideration of the major morbidity over the total follow-up period (0-6 months) shows that the LSR patients experienced significantly fewer complications than the OSR patients (9 LSR vs. 23 OSR; p = 0.003). The Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire showed significantly better quality of life for LSR at the 6-week follow-up assessment. However, at the 6-month follow-up assessment, these differences were decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The late clinical outcomes did not differ between LSR and OSR during the 30-day to 6-month follow-up period. Consideration of total postoperative morbidity shows a 27% reduction in major morbidity for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease.

The Sigma-trial protocol: a prospective double-blind multi-centre comparison of laparoscopic versus open elective sigmoid resection in patients with symptomatic diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Diverticulosis is a common disease in the western society with an incidence of 33-66%. 10-25% of these patients will develop diverticulitis. In order to prevent a high-risk acute operation it is advised to perform elective sigmoid resection after two episodes of diverticulitis in the elderly patient or after one episode in the younger (< 50 years) patient. Open sigmoid resection is still the gold standard, but laparoscopic colon resections seem to have certain advantages over open procedures. On the other hand, a double blind investigation has never been performed. The Sigma-trial is designed to evaluate the presumed advantages of laparoscopic over open sigmoid resections in patients with symptomatic diverticulitis. METHOD: Indication for elective resection is one episode of diverticulitis in patients < 50 years and two episodes in patient > 50 years or in case of progressive abdominal complaints due to strictures caused by a previous episode of diverticulits. The diagnosis is confirmed by CT-scan, barium enema and/or coloscopy. It is required that the participating surgeons have performed at least 15 laparoscopic and open sigmoid resections. Open resection is performed by median laparotomy, laparoscopic resection is approached by 4 or 5 cannula. Sigmoid and colon which contain serosal changes or induration are removed and a tension free anastomosis is created. After completion of either surgical procedure an opaque dressing will be used, covering from 10 cm above the umbilicus to the pubic bone. Surgery details will be kept separate from the patient's notes. Primary endpoints are the postoperative morbidity and mortality. We divided morbidity in minor (e.g. wound infection), major (e.g. anastomotic leakage) and late (e.g. incisional hernias) complications, data will be collected during hospital stay and after six weeks and six months postoperative. Secondary endpoints are the operative and the postoperative recovery data. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to laparotomy. Post operative recovery consists of return to normal diet, pain, analgesics, general health (SF-36 questionnaire) and duration of hospital stay. DISCUSSION: The Sigma-trial is a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized study to define the role of laparoscopic sigmoid resection in patients with symptomatic diverticulitis.

Management of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: a systematic review of the literature.

The management of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficits remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of operative and conservative treatment of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. PubMed was used to search for articles published from January 1992 to January 2003 using a variety of keywords. References were checked to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria were: (1) traumatic lumbar, thoracic or thoracolumbar fractures, (2) unstable fractures without neurological deficits, (3) a comparison between operative and conservative treatment, (4) at least ten patients were included in the study. Seventeen studies were identified; four prospective and 13 retrospective studies. Sample sizes in 15 studies were relatively small (18--100 patients); two studies had larger sample sizes. Comparison among different studies was difficult due to insufficient description of interventions, different outcome measures, and different length of follow-up periods. The current literature does not provide a reliable answer to whether operative or conservative treatment is more effective for unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. High quality randomised controlled trials are direly needed.