Search

BACKGROUND: A temporary ileostomy may reduce symptoms from anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection. Earlier results of the EASY trial showed that early closure of the temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following early versus late closure of a temporary ileostomy.METHODS: Early closure of a temporary ileostomy (at 8-13 days) was compared with late closure (at more than 12 weeks) in a multicentre RCT (EASY) that included patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Inclusion of participants was made after index surgery. Exclusion criteria were signs of anastomotic leakage, diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment, and signs of postoperative complications at clinical evaluation 1-4 days after rectal resection. HRQOL was evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months after resection using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 and Short Form 36 (SF-36®).RESULTS: There were 112 patients available for analysis. Response rates of the questionnaires were 82-95 per cent, except for EORTC QLQ-C30 at 12 months, to which only 54-55 per cent of the patients responded owing to an error in questionnaire distribution. There were no clinically significant differences in any questionnaire scores between the groups at 3, 6 or 12 months.CONCLUSION: Although the randomized study found that early closure of the temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer complications, this clinical advantage had no effect on the patients' HRQOL. Registration number: NCT01287637 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis was treated with resection and colostomy (Hartmann's procedure), with inherent complications and risk of a permanent stoma. The DILALA (DIverticulitis - LAparoscopic LAvage versus resection (Hartmann's procedure) for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis) and other randomized trials found laparoscopic lavage to be a feasible and safe alternative. The medium-term follow-up results of DILALA are reported here.METHODS: Patients were randomized during surgery after being diagnosed with Hinchey grade III perforated diverticulitis at diagnostic laparoscopy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more secondary operations from 0 to 24 months after the index procedure in the laparoscopic lavage versus Hartmann's procedure groups. The trial was registered as ISRCTN82208287.RESULTS: Forty-three patients were randomized to laparoscopic lavage and 40 to Hartmann's procedure. Patients in the lavage group had a 45 per cent reduced risk of undergoing one or more operations within 24 months (relative risk 0·55, 95 per cent c.i. 0·36 to 0·84; P = 0·012) and had fewer operations (ratio 0·51, 95 per cent c.i. 0·31 to 0·87; P = 0·024) compared with those in the Hartmann's group. No difference was found in mean number of readmissions (1·37 versus 1·50; P = 0·221) or mortality between patients randomized to laparoscopic lavage or Hartmann's procedure. Three patients in the lavage group and nine in the Hartmann's group had a colostomy at 24 months.CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage is a better option for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis than open resection and colostomy.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis was treated with resection and colostomy (Hartmann's procedure), with inherent complications and risk of a permanent stoma. The DILALA (DIverticulitis - LAparoscopic LAvage versus resection (Hartmann's procedure) for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis) and other randomized trials found laparoscopic lavage to be a feasible and safe alternative. The medium-term follow-up results of DILALA are reported here.METHODS: Patients were randomized during surgery after being diagnosed with Hinchey grade III perforated diverticulitis at diagnostic laparoscopy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more secondary operations from 0 to 24 months after the index procedure in the laparoscopic lavage versus Hartmann's procedure groups. The trial was registered as ISRCTN82208287.RESULTS: Forty-three patients were randomized to laparoscopic lavage and 40 to Hartmann's procedure. Patients in the lavage group had a 45 per cent reduced risk of undergoing one or more operations within 24 months (relative risk 0·55, 95 per cent c.i. 0·36 to 0·84; P = 0·012) and had fewer operations (ratio 0·51, 95 per cent c.i. 0·31 to 0·87; P = 0·024) compared with those in the Hartmann's group. No difference was found in mean number of readmissions (1·37 versus 1·50; P = 0·221) or mortality between patients randomized to laparoscopic lavage or Hartmann's procedure. Three patients in the lavage group and nine in the Hartmann's group had a colostomy at 24 months.CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage is a better option for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis than open resection and colostomy.

BACKGROUND: A temporary ileostomy may reduce symptoms from anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection. Earlier results of the EASY trial showed that early closure of the temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications. The aim of the present study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following early versus late closure of a temporary ileostomy.METHODS: Early closure of a temporary ileostomy (at 8-13 days) was compared with late closure (at more than 12 weeks) in a multicentre RCT (EASY) that included patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Inclusion of participants was made after index surgery. Exclusion criteria were signs of anastomotic leakage, diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment, and signs of postoperative complications at clinical evaluation 1-4 days after rectal resection. HRQOL was evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months after resection using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 and Short Form 36 (SF-36®).RESULTS: There were 112 patients available for analysis. Response rates of the questionnaires were 82-95 per cent, except for EORTC QLQ-C30 at 12 months, to which only 54-55 per cent of the patients responded owing to an error in questionnaire distribution. There were no clinically significant differences in any questionnaire scores between the groups at 3, 6 or 12 months.CONCLUSION: Although the randomized study found that early closure of the temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer complications, this clinical advantage had no effect on the patients' HRQOL. Registration number: NCT01287637 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Contains fulltext : 174511.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up. METHODS: Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842). RESULTS: In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI -10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI -11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 1

Contains fulltext : 174511.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up. METHODS: Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842). RESULTS: In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI -10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI -11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 1

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that early physical rehabilitation after surgical procedures is associated with improved outcome measured as shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between the preoperative physical activity level and subsequent postoperative complications, sick-leave and hospital stay after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the setting of the LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open). METHODS: LAPPRO is a prospective controlled trial, comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open surgery for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011. 1569 patients aged 64 or less with an occupation were included in this sub-study. The Gleason score was <7 in 52 % of the patients. Demographics and the level of self-assessed preoperative physical activity, length of hospital stay, complications, quality of life, recovery and sick-leave were extracted from clinical record forms and questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression, with log-link and logit-link functions, was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The patients were divided into four groups based on their level of activity. As the group with lowest engagement of physical activity was found to be significantly different in base line characteristics from the other groups they were excluded from further analysis. Among patients that were physically active preoperativelly (n = 1467) there was no significant difference between the physical activity-groups regarding hospital stay, recovery or complications. However, in the group with the highest self-assessed level of physical activity, 5-7 times per week, 13 % required no sick leave, compared to 6.3 % in the group with a physical activity level of 1-2 times per week only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of med operated with radical prostatectomy, a high level of physical activity preoperatively was associated with reduced need for sick

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that early physical rehabilitation after surgical procedures is associated with improved outcome measured as shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between the preoperative physical activity level and subsequent postoperative complications, sick-leave and hospital stay after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the setting of the LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open). METHODS: LAPPRO is a prospective controlled trial, comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open surgery for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011. 1569 patients aged 64 or less with an occupation were included in this sub-study. The Gleason score was <7 in 52 % of the patients. Demographics and the level of self-assessed preoperative physical activity, length of hospital stay, complications, quality of life, recovery and sick-leave were extracted from clinical record forms and questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression, with log-link and logit-link functions, was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The patients were divided into four groups based on their level of activity. As the group with lowest engagement of physical activity was found to be significantly different in base line characteristics from the other groups they were excluded from further analysis. Among patients that were physically active preoperativelly (n = 1467) there was no significant difference between the physical activity-groups regarding hospital stay, recovery or complications. However, in the group with the highest self-assessed level of physical activity, 5-7 times per week, 13 % required no sick leave, compared to 6.3 % in the group with a physical activity level of 1-2 times per week only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of med operated with radical prostatectomy, a high level of physical activity preoperatively was associated with reduced need for sick

Background: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up. Methods: Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842). Results: In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) −10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI −10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI −11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n =

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that early physical rehabilitation after surgical procedures is associated with improved outcome measured as shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between the preoperative physical activity level and subsequent postoperative complications, sick-leave and hospital stay after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the setting of the LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open). METHODS: LAPPRO is a prospective controlled trial, comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open surgery for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011. 1569 patients aged 64 or less with an occupation were included in this sub-study. The Gleason score was <7 in 52 % of the patients. Demographics and the level of self-assessed preoperative physical activity, length of hospital stay, complications, quality of life, recovery and sick-leave were extracted from clinical record forms and questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression, with log-link and logit-link functions, was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The patients were divided into four groups based on their level of activity. As the group with lowest engagement of physical activity was found to be significantly different in base line characteristics from the other groups they were excluded from further analysis. Among patients that were physically active preoperativelly (n = 1467) there was no significant difference between the physical activity-groups regarding hospital stay, recovery or complications. However, in the group with the highest self-assessed level of physical activity, 5-7 times per week, 13 % required no sick leave, compared to 6.3 % in the group with a physical activity level of 1-2 times per week only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of med operated with radical prostatectomy, a high level of physical activity preoperatively was associated with reduced need for sick

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that early physical rehabilitation after surgical procedures is associated with improved outcome measured as shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between the preoperative physical activity level and subsequent postoperative complications, sick-leave and hospital stay after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the setting of the LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open). METHODS: LAPPRO is a prospective controlled trial, comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open surgery for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011. 1569 patients aged 64 or less with an occupation were included in this sub-study. The Gleason score was <7 in 52 % of the patients. Demographics and the level of self-assessed preoperative physical activity, length of hospital stay, complications, quality of life, recovery and sick-leave were extracted from clinical record forms and questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression, with log-link and logit-link functions, was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The patients were divided into four groups based on their level of activity. As the group with lowest engagement of physical activity was found to be significantly different in base line characteristics from the other groups they were excluded from further analysis. Among patients that were physically active preoperativelly (n = 1467) there was no significant difference between the physical activity-groups regarding hospital stay, recovery or complications. However, in the group with the highest self-assessed level of physical activity, 5-7 times per week, 13 % required no sick leave, compared to 6.3 % in the group with a physical activity level of 1-2 times per week only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of med operated with radical prostatectomy, a high level of physical activity preoperatively was associated with reduced need for sick

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that early physical rehabilitation after surgical procedures is associated with improved outcome measured as shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between the preoperative physical activity level and subsequent postoperative complications, sick-leave and hospital stay after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the setting of the LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open). METHODS: LAPPRO is a prospective controlled trial, comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open surgery for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011. 1569 patients aged 64 or less with an occupation were included in this sub-study. The Gleason score was <7 in 52 % of the patients. Demographics and the level of self-assessed preoperative physical activity, length of hospital stay, complications, quality of life, recovery and sick-leave were extracted from clinical record forms and questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression, with log-link and logit-link functions, was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The patients were divided into four groups based on their level of activity. As the group with lowest engagement of physical activity was found to be significantly different in base line characteristics from the other groups they were excluded from further analysis. Among patients that were physically active preoperativelly (n = 1467) there was no significant difference between the physical activity-groups regarding hospital stay, recovery or complications. However, in the group with the highest self-assessed level of physical activity, 5-7 times per week, 13 % required no sick leave, compared to 6.3 % in the group with a physical activity level of 1-2 times per week only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of med operated with radical prostatectomy, a high level of physical activity preoperatively was associated with reduced need for sick

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that early physical rehabilitation after surgical procedures is associated with improved outcome measured as shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between the preoperative physical activity level and subsequent postoperative complications, sick-leave and hospital stay after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the setting of the LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open). METHODS: LAPPRO is a prospective controlled trial, comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open surgery for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011. 1569 patients aged 64 or less with an occupation were included in this sub-study. The Gleason score was <7 in 52 % of the patients. Demographics and the level of self-assessed preoperative physical activity, length of hospital stay, complications, quality of life, recovery and sick-leave were extracted from clinical record forms and questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression, with log-link and logit-link functions, was used to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The patients were divided into four groups based on their level of activity. As the group with lowest engagement of physical activity was found to be significantly different in base line characteristics from the other groups they were excluded from further analysis. Among patients that were physically active preoperativelly (n = 1467) there was no significant difference between the physical activity-groups regarding hospital stay, recovery or complications. However, in the group with the highest self-assessed level of physical activity, 5-7 times per week, 13 % required no sick leave, compared to 6.3 % in the group with a physical activity level of 1-2 times per week only (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of med operated with radical prostatectomy, a high level of physical activity preoperatively was associated with reduced need for sick

Background: Open surgery with resection and colostomy (Hartmann's procedure) has been the standard treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. In recent years laparoscopic lavage has emerged as an alternative, with potential benefits for patients with purulent peritonitis, Hinchey grade III. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure with health economic evaluation within the framework of the DILALA (DIverticulitis – LAparoscopic LAvage versus resection (Hartmann's procedure) for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis) trial. Methods: Clinical effectiveness and resource use were derived from the DILALA trial and unit costs from Swedish sources. Costs were analysed from the perspective of the healthcare sector. The study period was divided into short-term analysis (base-case A), within 12 months, and long-term analysis (base-case B), from inclusion in the trial throughout the patient's expected life. Results: The study included 43 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage and 40 who had Hartmann's procedure in Denmark and Sweden during 2010–2014. In base-case A, the difference in mean cost per patient between laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure was €–8983 (95 per cent c.i. –16 232 to –1735). The mean(s.d.) costs per patient in base-case B were €25 703(27 544) and €45 498(38 928) for laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure respectively, resulting in a difference of €–19 794 (95 per cent c.i. –34 657 to –4931). The results were robust as demonstrated in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The significant cost reduction in this study, together with results of safety and efficacy from RCTs, support the routine use of laparoscopic lavage as treatment for complicated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis.

Background: Open surgery with resection and colostomy (Hartmann's procedure) has been the standard treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. In recent years laparoscopic lavage has emerged as an alternative, with potential benefits for patients with purulent peritonitis, Hinchey grade III. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure with health economic evaluation within the framework of the DILALA (DIverticulitis – LAparoscopic LAvage versus resection (Hartmann's procedure) for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis) trial. Methods: Clinical effectiveness and resource use were derived from the DILALA trial and unit costs from Swedish sources. Costs were analysed from the perspective of the healthcare sector. The study period was divided into short-term analysis (base-case A), within 12 months, and long-term analysis (base-case B), from inclusion in the trial throughout the patient's expected life. Results: The study included 43 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage and 40 who had Hartmann's procedure in Denmark and Sweden during 2010–2014. In base-case A, the difference in mean cost per patient between laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure was €–8983 (95 per cent c.i. –16 232 to –1735). The mean(s.d.) costs per patient in base-case B were €25 703(27 544) and €45 498(38 928) for laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure respectively, resulting in a difference of €–19 794 (95 per cent c.i. –34 657 to –4931). The results were robust as demonstrated in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The significant cost reduction in this study, together with results of safety and efficacy from RCTs, support the routine use of laparoscopic lavage as treatment for complicated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis.

PURPOSE: In the postoperative phase after colorectal surgery, restrictions on physical activity are often recommended for patients to prevent incisional hernias. However, evidence does not support that restrictions may prevent such hernias. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent of restrictions on physical activity recommended for patients operated for colorectal cancer and to evaluate the agreement among surgical specialists.METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 60 general surgeons (specialists) in Denmark and Sweden working in academic departments of surgery with a high volume of colorectal cancer resections. The questionnaire was case based and contained questions regarding possible restrictions on physical activity recommended for patients 0-2, 2-6 and >6 weeks after resection for colorectal cancer. Agreement among the surgeon on whether restrictions should be recommended was analyzed.RESULTS: Forty-one surgeons answered the questionnaire (68.3 %). The probability that two randomly chosen specialists agreed on whether restrictions should be given was generally low for the first two time periods (0-2 and 2-6 weeks); however, at >6 weeks there was a high level of agreement. Moreover, the number of restrictions recommended was different between the 41 surgeons (p < 0.0005) and more restrictions were recommended for open compared with laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.0005).CONCLUSIONS: Major disagreements exist on the degree of restrictions on physical activity that should be recommended for patients after colorectal surgery. As there is no evidence to support that specific restrictions prevent hernia formation, these are merely based on personal preferences. Clinical studies in this area are therefore highly warranted.

AIM: Colorectal anastomotic leakage is a serious complication. Despite extensive research, no consensus on the most important preoperative risk factors exists. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate risk factors for anastomotic leakage in patients operated with colorectal resection.METHOD: The databases MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched for prospective observational studies on preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Meta-analyses were performed on outcomes based on odds ratios (OR) from multivariate regression analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for bias assessment within studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels.RESULTS: This review included 23 studies evaluating 110,272 patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. The meta-analyses found that a low rectal anastomosis [OR = 3.26 (95% CI: 2.31-4.62)], male gender [OR = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.37-1.60)] and preoperative radiotherapy [OR = 1.65 (95% CI: 1.06-2.56)] may be risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Primarily as a result of observational design, the quality of evidence was regarded as moderate or low for these risk factors according to the GRADE approach.CONCLUSION: Based on the best available evidence, important preoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leakage have been identified. Knowledge on risk factors may influence treatment and procedure-related decisions, and possibly reduce the leakage rate.

BACKGROUND: This article reports on patient-reported sexual dysfunction and micturition symptoms following a randomized trial of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.METHODS: Patients in the COLOR II randomized trial, comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer, completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR38 questionnaire before surgery, and after 4 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mean differences on a 100-point scale were calculated using changes from baseline value at the various time points in the domains of sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, male and female sexual problems, and micturition symptoms.RESULTS: Of 617 randomized patients, 385 completed this phase of the trial. Their mean age was 67·1 years. Surgery caused an anticipated reduction in genitourinary function after 4 weeks, with no significant differences between laparoscopic and open approaches. An improvement in sexual dysfunction was seen in the first year, but some male sexual problems persisted. Before operation 64·5 per cent of men in the laparoscopic group and 55·6 per cent in the open group reported some degree of erectile dysfunction. This increased to 81·1 and 80·5 per cent respectively 4 weeks after surgery, and 76·3 versus 75·5 per cent at 12 months, with no significant differences between groups. Micturition symptoms were less affected than sexual function and gradually improved to preoperative levels by 6 months. Adjusting for confounders, including radiotherapy, did not change these results.CONCLUSION: Sexual dysfunction is common in patients with rectal cancer, and treatment (including surgery) increases the proportion of patients affected. A laparoscopic approach does not change this.REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0029779 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

PURPOSE: In the postoperative phase after colorectal surgery, restrictions on physical activity are often recommended for patients to prevent incisional hernias. However, evidence does not support that restrictions may prevent such hernias. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent of restrictions on physical activity recommended for patients operated for colorectal cancer and to evaluate the agreement among surgical specialists.METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 60 general surgeons (specialists) in Denmark and Sweden working in academic departments of surgery with a high volume of colorectal cancer resections. The questionnaire was case based and contained questions regarding possible restrictions on physical activity recommended for patients 0-2, 2-6 and >6 weeks after resection for colorectal cancer. Agreement among the surgeon on whether restrictions should be recommended was analyzed.RESULTS: Forty-one surgeons answered the questionnaire (68.3 %). The probability that two randomly chosen specialists agreed on whether restrictions should be given was generally low for the first two time periods (0-2 and 2-6 weeks); however, at >6 weeks there was a high level of agreement. Moreover, the number of restrictions recommended was different between the 41 surgeons (p < 0.0005) and more restrictions were recommended for open compared with laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.0005).CONCLUSIONS: Major disagreements exist on the degree of restrictions on physical activity that should be recommended for patients after colorectal surgery. As there is no evidence to support that specific restrictions prevent hernia formation, these are merely based on personal preferences. Clinical studies in this area are therefore highly warranted.

AIM: Colorectal anastomotic leakage is a serious complication. Despite extensive research, no consensus on the most important preoperative risk factors exists. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate risk factors for anastomotic leakage in patients operated with colorectal resection.METHOD: The databases MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched for prospective observational studies on preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Meta-analyses were performed on outcomes based on odds ratios (OR) from multivariate regression analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for bias assessment within studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels.RESULTS: This review included 23 studies evaluating 110,272 patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. The meta-analyses found that a low rectal anastomosis [OR = 3.26 (95% CI: 2.31-4.62)], male gender [OR = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.37-1.60)] and preoperative radiotherapy [OR = 1.65 (95% CI: 1.06-2.56)] may be risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Primarily as a result of observational design, the quality of evidence was regarded as moderate or low for these risk factors according to the GRADE approach.CONCLUSION: Based on the best available evidence, important preoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leakage have been identified. Knowledge on risk factors may influence treatment and procedure-related decisions, and possibly reduce the leakage rate.

BACKGROUND: This article reports on patient-reported sexual dysfunction and micturition symptoms following a randomized trial of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.METHODS: Patients in the COLOR II randomized trial, comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer, completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR38 questionnaire before surgery, and after 4 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mean differences on a 100-point scale were calculated using changes from baseline value at the various time points in the domains of sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, male and female sexual problems, and micturition symptoms.RESULTS: Of 617 randomized patients, 385 completed this phase of the trial. Their mean age was 67·1 years. Surgery caused an anticipated reduction in genitourinary function after 4 weeks, with no significant differences between laparoscopic and open approaches. An improvement in sexual dysfunction was seen in the first year, but some male sexual problems persisted. Before operation 64·5 per cent of men in the laparoscopic group and 55·6 per cent in the open group reported some degree of erectile dysfunction. This increased to 81·1 and 80·5 per cent respectively 4 weeks after surgery, and 76·3 versus 75·5 per cent at 12 months, with no significant differences between groups. Micturition symptoms were less affected than sexual function and gradually improved to preoperative levels by 6 months. Adjusting for confounders, including radiotherapy, did not change these results.CONCLUSION: Sexual dysfunction is common in patients with rectal cancer, and treatment (including surgery) increases the proportion of patients affected. A laparoscopic approach does not change this.REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0029779 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Previous studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgical techniques have reported improved health-related quality of life (HRQL). This analysis compared HRQL 12¿months after laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a subset of a randomized trial.

Previous studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgical techniques have reported improved health-related quality of life (HRQL). This analysis compared HRQL 12¿months after laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a subset of a randomized trial.

The are currently a number of unsolved clinical questions in colorectal surgery with new surgical principles being introduced without proper scientific high-level evidence. These include complete mesocolic excision with central ligation for colonic cancer, extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer, robotic surgery for various colorectal procedures, laparoscopic lavage without resection for Hinchey Stage III perforated sigmoid diverticulitis, and the use of the single port technique for laparoscopic surgery. Before general implementation the new modalities should ideally be evalueted in randomized studies and meta-analyses. Many randomized studies, however, cannot give the final answer to the research question because they are underpowered and it is therefore important to perform well-designed studies that are large enough to provide the final answer. A way forward could therefore be to form multicenter and even multinational research groups in order to ensure accrual of sufficient sample sizes.

The are currently a number of unsolved clinical questions in colorectal surgery with new surgical principles being introduced without proper scientific high-level evidence. These include complete mesocolic excision with central ligation for colonic cancer, extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer, robotic surgery for various colorectal procedures, laparoscopic lavage without resection for Hinchey Stage III perforated sigmoid diverticulitis, and the use of the single port technique for laparoscopic surgery. Before general implementation the new modalities should ideally be evalueted in randomized studies and meta-analyses. Many randomized studies, however, cannot give the final answer to the research question because they are underpowered and it is therefore important to perform well-designed studies that are large enough to provide the final answer. A way forward could therefore be to form multicenter and even multinational research groups in order to ensure accrual of sufficient sample sizes.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline. METHODS: An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference. RESULTS: Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term resu

Introduction: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer has been proven efficacious but morbidity and oncological outcome need to be investigated in a randomized clinical trial. Trial design: Non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. Methods: The COLOR II trial is an ongoing international randomized clinical trial. Currently 27 hospitals from Europe, South Korea and Canada are including patients. The primary endpoint is loco-regional recurrence rate three years post-operatively. Secondary endpoints cover quality of life, overall and disease free survival, post-operative morbidity and health economy analysis. Results: By July 2008, 27 hospitals from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, South Korea and Canada had included 739 patients. The intra-operative conversion rate in the laparoscopic group was 17%. Distribution of age, location of the tumor and radiotherapy were equal in both treatment groups. Most tumors are located in the mid-rectum (41%). Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer is feasible. The results and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer remain unknown, but are subject of interim analysis within the COLOR II trial. Completion of inclusion is expected by the end of 2009. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT00297791 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-May, INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer has been proven efficacious but morbidity and oncological outcome need to be investigated in a randomized clinical trial. Trial design: Non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. METHODS: The COLOR II trial is an ongoing international randomized clinical trial. Currently 27 hospitals from Europe, South Korea and Canada are including patients. The primary endpoint is loco-regional recurrence rate three years post-operatively. Secondary endpoints cover quality of life, overall and disease free survival, post-operative morbidity and health economy analysis. RESULTS: By July 2008, 27 hospitals from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, South Korea and Canada had included 739 patients. The intra-operative conversion rate in the laparoscopic group was 17%. Distribution of age, location of the tumor and radiotherapy were equal in both treatment groups. Most tumors are located in the mid-rectum (41%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer is feasible. The results and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer remain unknown, but are subject of interim analysis within the COLOR II trial. Completion of inclusion is expected by the end of 2009. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT00297791 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-May, INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer has been proven efficacious but morbidity and oncological outcome need to be investigated in a randomized clinical trial. Trial design: Non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. METHODS: The COLOR II trial is an ongoing international randomized clinical trial. Currently 27 hospitals from Europe, South Korea and Canada are including patients. The primary endpoint is loco-regional recurrence rate three years post-operatively. Secondary endpoints cover quality of life, overall and disease free survival, post-operative morbidity and health economy analysis. RESULTS: By July 2008, 27 hospitals from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, South Korea and Canada had included 739 patients. The intra-operative conversion rate in the laparoscopic group was 17%. Distribution of age, location of the tumor and radiotherapy were equal in both treatment groups. Most tumors are located in the mid-rectum (41%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer is feasible. The results and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer remain unknown, but are subject of interim analysis within the COLOR II trial. Completion of inclusion is expected by the end of 2009. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT00297791 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Background: The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002. Methods: A systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer. Results: Advanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is less than1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery. Conclusion: Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.

Background: Laparoscopic hernioplasty has been criticized because of its technical complexity and increased costs. Disposable dissection balloons can be used to facilitate the creation of the initial working space in totally extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP), but their use adds to the cost of the operation. Methods: A total of 322 men with unilateral, primary, or recurrent inguinal hernias were randomized to undergo TEP with or without a dissection balloon. Results: In the group with the balloon, three of 161 patients (2.5%) required conversion to transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty (TAPP), or open herniorraphy, whereas 17 of 161 patients (10.6%) were converted to TAPP or open herniorraphy in the group without the balloon (p = 0.002). The mean operation time was 55 min in the group with the balloon and 63 min in the group without the balloon (p = 0.004). There was no difference between them in postoperative morbidity, and there were no major complications in either group. The recurrence rate was 3.1% in the group with the balloon and 3.7 % in the group without the balloon (p = 0.8). Conclusion: The use of a dissection balloon in TEP reduces the conversion rate and may be especially beneficial early in the learning curve.

Laparoscopic hernioplasty has been criticized because of its technical complexity and increased costs. Disposable dissection balloons can be used to gain the initial working space in totally extraperitoneal endoscopic (TEP) hernioplasty, but this increases its cost. Forty-four men with bilateral, primary or recurrent inguinal hernias were randomized to undergo TEP with or without dissection balloon, There were two conversions to transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty, or open herniorrhaphy, in the group with balloon and four in the group without balloon. There was no difference in the postoperative morbidity or operation time between the two groups, and there were no major complications in either group. The recurrence rate was 4.3% in the group with the balloon and 7.1% in the group without the balloon. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups, Although our study population is too small to detect small differences between the groups, it seems that the use of a dissection balloon is not beneficial in a bilateral TEP.