Search

Background: The additional value of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing infectious complications after emergency cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is a much-debated subject in the surgical community. Evidence-based guidelines are lacking, and consequently the use of antibiotic prophylaxis varies greatly among surgeons and hospitals. Recently, high-level evidence became available demonstrating that postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with acute cholecystitis does not reduce the risk of infectious complications. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in relation to the risk of infectious complications, however, has never been studied.Methods: The PEANUTS II trial is a randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label noninferiority trial whose aim is to determine the utility of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing emergency cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis. Patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis, as defined according the Tokyo Guidelines, will be randomly assigned to a single preoperative dose of antibiotic prophylaxis (2000 mg of first-generation cephalosporin delivered intravenously) or no antibiotic prophylaxis before emergency cholecystectomy. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint consisting of all postoperative infectious complications occurring during the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints include all the individual components of the primary endpoint, all other complications, duration of hospital stay, and total costs. The hypothesis is that the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis is noninferior to the presence of antibiotic prophylaxis. A noninferiority margin of 10% is assumed. With a 1-sided risk of 2.5% and a power of 80%, a total of 454 subjects will have to be included. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Discussion: The PEANUTS II trial will provide evidence-based advice concerning the utility of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing emergency cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5802 . Registered on 4 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Casemix adjusted in-hospital mortality is one of the measures used to improve quality of care. The adjustment currently used does not take into account the effects of readmission, because reliable data on readmission is not readily available through routinely collected databases. We have studied the impact of readmissions by linking admissions of the same patient, and as a result were able to compare hospital mortality among frequently, as opposed to, non-frequently readmitted patients. We also formulated a method to adjust for readmission for the calculation of hospital standardised mortality ratios (HSMRs). Methods: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective analysis of routinely collected hospital data of six large nonuniversity teaching hospitals in the Netherlands with casemix adjusted standardised mortality ratios ranging from 65 to 114 and a combined value of 93 over a five-year period. Participants concerned 240662 patients admitted 418566 times in total during the years 2003 - 2007. Predicted deaths by the HSMR model 2008 over a five-year period were compared with observed deaths. Results: Numbers of readmissions per patient differ substantially between the six hospitals, up to a factor of 2. A large interaction was found between numbers of admissions per patient and HSMR-predicted risks. Observed deaths for frequently admitted patients were significantly lower than HSMR-predicted deaths, which could be explained by uncorrected factors surrounding readmissions. Conclusions: Patients admitted more frequently show lower risks of dying on average per admission. This decline in risk is only partly detected by the current HSMR. Comparing frequently admitted patients to non-frequently admitted patients commits the constant risk fallacy and potentially lowers HSMRs of hospitals treating many frequently admitted patients and increases HSMRs of hospitals treating many non-frequently admitted patients. This misleading effect can only be demonstrated by an analysis over a prolonged period, but occurs, in effect, every day of the year. This finding is relevant for all countries where hospitals use HSMR for monitoring and improving hospital performance. The use of 'admission frequency' as additional adjustment variable may provide a more accurate HSMR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal post-operative care regimen after surgically fixed Lauge Hansen supination exorotation injuries remains to be established. This study compares whether unprotected weight bearing as tolerated is superior to protected weight bearing and unprotected non-weight bearing in terms of functional outcome and safety., Methods/design: The WOW! Study is a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Patients between 18 and 65 years of age with a Lauge Hansen supination exorotation type 2, 3 or 4 ankle fractures requiring surgical treatment are eligible for inclusion. An expert panel validates the classification and inclusion eligibility. After surgery, patients are randomized to either the 1) unprotected non-weight-bearing, 2) protected weight-bearing, or 3) unprotected weight-bearing group. The primary outcome measure is ankle-specific disability measured by the Olerud-Molander ankle score. Secondary outcomes are 1) quality of life (e.g., return to work and resumption of sport), 2) complications, 3) range of motion, 4) calf wasting, and 5) maximum pressure load after 3 months and 1 year., Discussion: This trial is designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of unprotected weight bearing with two commonly used post-operative treatment regimens after internal fixation of specified, intrinsically stable but displaced ankle fractures. An expert panel has been established to evaluate every potential subject, which ensures that every patient is strictly screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and that there is a clear indication for surgical fixation., Trial Registration: The WOW! Study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register ( NTR3727 ). Date of registration: 28-11-2012.

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