Search

Background: The necessity of the staging laparoscopy in patients with pancreatic cancer is still debated. The objective of this study was to assess the yield of staging laparoscopy for detecting occult metastases in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer., Method: This was a post-hoc analysis of the randomized controlled PREOPANC trial in which patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomized between preoperative chemoradiotherapy or immediate surgery. Patients assigned to preoperative treatment underwent a staging laparoscopy prior to preoperative treatment according to protocol, to avoid unnecessary chemoradiotherapy in patients with occult metastatic disease., Results: Of the 246 included patients, 7 did not undergo surgery. A staging laparoscopy was performed in 133 patients (55.6%) and explorative laparotomy in 106 patients (44.4%). At staging laparoscopy, occult metastases were detected in 13 patients (9.8%); 12 liver metastases and 1 peritoneal metastasis. At direct explorative laparotomy, occult metastases were found in 9 patients (8.5%); 6 with liver metastases, 1 with peritoneal metastases, and 2 with metastases at multiple sites. One patient had peritoneal metastases at exploration after a negative staging laparoscopy. Patients with occult metastases were more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy if found with staging laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (76.9% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.040)., Conclusions: Staging laparoscopy detected occult metastases in about 10% of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. These patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic chemotherapy compared to patients in whom occult metastases were detected with laparotomy. A staging laparoscopy is recommended before planned resection., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Early recognition and management of postoperative complications, before they become clinically relevant, can improve postoperative outcomes for patients, especially for high-risk procedures such as pancreatic resection., Methods: We did an open-label, nationwide, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that included all patients having pancreatic resection during a 22-month period in the Netherlands. In this trial design, all 17 centres that did pancreatic surgery were randomly allocated for the timing of the crossover from usual care (the control group) to treatment given in accordance with a multimodal, multidisciplinary algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of postoperative complications (the intervention group). Randomisation was done by an independent statistician using a computer-generated scheme, stratified to ensure that low-medium-volume centres alternated with high-volume centres. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment. A smartphone app was designed that incorporated the algorithm and included the daily evaluation of clinical and biochemical markers. The algorithm determined when to do abdominal CT, radiological drainage, start antibiotic treatment, and remove abdominal drains. After crossover, clinicians were trained in how to use the algorithm during a 4-week wash-in period; analyses comparing outcomes between the control group and the intervention group included all patients other than those having pancreatic resection during this wash-in period. The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding that required invasive intervention, organ failure, and 90-day mortality, and was assessed by a masked adjudication committee. This trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL6671., Findings: From Jan 8, 2018, to Nov 9, 2019, all 1805 patients who had pancreatic resection in the Netherlands were eligible for and included in this study. 57 patients who underwent resection during the wash-in phase were excluded from the primary analysis. 1748 patients (885 receiving usual care and 863 receiving algorithm-centred care) were included. The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the algorithm-centred care group than in the usual care group (73 [8%] of 863 patients vs 124 [14%] of 885 patients; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 95% CI 0·38-0·61; p<0·0001). Among patients treated according to the algorithm, compared with patients who received usual care there was a decrease in bleeding that required intervention (47 [5%] patients vs 51 [6%] patients; RR 0·65, 0·42-0·99; p=0·046), organ failure (39 [5%] patients vs 92 [10%] patients; 0·35, 0·20-0·60; p=0·0001), and 90-day mortality (23 [3%] patients vs 44 [5%] patients; 0·42, 0·19-0·92; p=0·029)., Interpretation: The algorithm for the early recognition and minimally invasive management of complications after pancreatic resection considerably improved clinical outcomes compared with usual care. This difference included an approximate 50% reduction in mortality at 90 days., Funding: The Dutch Cancer Society and UMC Utrecht., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CvdL is the Secretary of the Dutch Society of Interventional Radiology (unpaid position). CHvW's institution received payments from Pfizer, Biomerieux, Da Volterra, and MSD and he has a European Patent Application with Da Volterrra, University Antwerp, and University Medical Centre Utrecht Holdings. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study aimed to identify predictors for early and very early disease recurrence in patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy., Methods: Included were patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Multivariable multinomial regression was performed to identify preoperative predictors for manifestation of recurrence within 3, 6 and 12 months after PDAC resection., Results: 836 patients with a median follow-up of 37 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-48) months and overall survival of 18 (IQR 10-32) months were analyzed. 670 patients (80%) developed recurrence: 82 patients (10%) <3 months, 96 patients (11%) within 3-6 months and 226 patients (27%) within 6-12 months. LogCA 19-9 (OR 1.25 [95% CI 1.10-1.41]; P < 0.001) and neoadjuvant treatment (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.01-0.68]; P = 0.02) were associated with recurrence <3 months. LogCA 19-9 (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.10-1.38]; P < 0.001) and 0-90° venous involvement on CT imaging (OR 2.93 [95% CI 1.60-5.37]; P < 0.001) were associated with recurrence within 3-6 months. A Charlson Age Comorbidity Index ≥4 (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.09-2.16]; P = 0.02) and logCA 19-9 (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.14-1.35]; P < 0.001) were related to recurrence within 6-12 months., Conclusion: This study demonstrates preoperative predictors that are associated with the manifestation of early and very early recurrence after PDAC resection. Knowledge of these predictors can be used to guide individualized surveillance and treatment strategies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to determine pancreatic surgery specific short- and long-term complications of pediatric, adolescent and young adult (PAYA) patients who underwent pancreatic resection, as compared to a comparator cohort of adults., Methods: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed in PAYA patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2007 and 2016. PAYA was defined as all patients <40 years at time of surgery. Pancreatic surgery-specific complications were assessed according to international definitions and textbook outcome was determined., Results: A total of 230 patients were included in the PAYA cohort (112 distal pancreatectomies, 99 pancreatoduodenectomies), and 2526 patients in the comparator cohort. For pancreatoduodenectomy, severe morbidity (29.3% vs. 28.6%; P = 0.881), in-hospital mortality (1% vs. 4%; P = 0.179) and textbook outcome (62% vs. 58%; P = 0.572) were comparable between the PAYA and the comparator cohort. These outcomes were also similar for distal pancreatectomy. After pancreatoduodenectomy, new-onset diabetes mellitus (8% vs. 16%) and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (27% vs. 73%) were lower in the PAYA cohort when compared to adult literature., Conclusion: Pancreatic surgery-specific complications were comparable with patients ≥40 years. Development of endocrine and exocrine insufficiency in PAYA patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, however, was substantially lower compared to adult literature., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comparing outcomes across hospitals to learn from best performing hospitals can be valuable. However, reliably identifying best performance is challenging. This study assesses the possibility to distinguish best performing hospitals on single outcomes and consistency of performance on different outcomes., Methods: Data were derived from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit 2013-2015. Outcomes considered were textbook outcome (colon), (circumferential) resection margins, (serious) complications, mortality, and 'failure to rescue'. To include uncertainty in rankings, random effect logistic regression models were used to calculate expected ranks (ERs), for each hospital and outcome. Rankability was calculated for each outcome, as a measure of reliability of ranking. Furthermore, correlation between ERs on different outcomes was assessed. Correlation was considered weak <0.40, moderate between 0.40 - 0.59 and strong >0.60., Results: The study included 32 143 patients; of whom 11 373 were treated in 2015 across 84 hospitals, 8181 colon and 3192 rectal cancer patients. In this one-year period 'Postoperative complications' had the highest rankability for colon (57%) and rectal (41%) surgery. No (group of) hospital(s) had the highest ER(s) on all outcomes. Correlation between ERs of outcomes was moderate in 2 (of 25) and strong in 4 (of 25) combinations. Rankability of colorectal mortality increased from 14% in 2015 to 35% when data over 2013-2015 were used., Conclusion: The highest reliability of identifying best performance based on an outcome was 57%. However, the balance between reliability and relevance of outcomes is vulnerable. No (group of) hospital(s) could be identified as best performer on all outcomes. Performance was not consistent on outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors have anything to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: In some Dutch pancreatic surgery centers, patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for ampullary cancer undergo surveillance for colorectal cancer (CRC), since an association is suggested in contemporary literature. This study aimed to examine the CRC incidence after PD for ampullary cancer in four pancreatic surgery centers and a Dutch nationwide cohort., Methods: All patients who underwent resection of ampullary cancer from 2005 through 2017 at four centers were included. All colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses in these patients were recorded. In addition all PDs for ampullary cancer in the Dutch Pathology Registry (2000-2017) were recorded along with the CRC diagnoses and compared with an age, sex, and year-matched cohort., Results: Out of 287 included patients by the four centers, 11% underwent a colonoscopy within one year after PD. Eight (2.7%) were diagnosed with CRC before PD and two (0.7%), at 14 and 72 months after PD. In the nationwide cohort comparison, the CRC incidence was similar before (2.6% versus 1.9%, P = 0.424) and after surgery (2.1% versus 3.1%, P = 0.237). Within one year after PD, the incidence was 0.3% compared to 0.6% in the matched controls (P = 0.726)., Conclusions: The current study could not find an increased risk of CRC in patients with resected ampullary cancer. Therefore, there is insufficient justification to screen for CRC in patients with resected ampullary cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The relation between type of postoperative complication and not receiving chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear. The aim was to investigate which patient factors and postoperative complications were associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy., Methods: Patients who underwent resection (2014-2017) for PDAC were identified from the nationwide mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The association between patient-, tumor-, center-, treatment characteristics, and the risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression., Results: Overall, of 1306 patients, 24% (n = 312) developed postoperative Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications. In-hospital mortality was 3.5% (n = 46). Some 433 patients (33%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Independent predictors (all p < 0.050) for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.96), higher ECOG performance status (OR 0.57), postoperative complications (OR 0.32), especially grade B/C pancreatic fistula (OR 0.51) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR 0.36), poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 0.62), and annual center volume of <40 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 0.51)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that a third of patients do not receive chemotherapy after resection of PDAC. Next to higher age, worse performance status and lower annual surgical volume, this is mostly related to surgical complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, rates of major complications and Failure to Rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy between low- and high-mortality hospitals are compared, and independent predictors for FTR investigated., Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in 2014 and 2015 in The Netherlands were included. Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on mortality rates. The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) and death after a major complication (FTR) were compared between these quartiles. Independent predictors for FTR were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis., Results: Out of 1.342 patients, 391 (29%) developed a major complication and in-hospital mortality was 4.2%. FTR occurred in 56 (14.3%) patients. Mortality was 0.9% in the first hospital quartile (4 hospitals, 327 patients) and 8.1% in the fourth quartile (5 hospitals, 310 patients). The rate of major complications increased by 40% (25.7% vs 35.2%) between the first and fourth hospital quartile, whereas the FTR rate increased by 560% (3.6% vs 22.9%). Independent predictors of FTR were male sex (OR = 2.1, 95%CI 1.2-3.9), age >75 years (OR = 4.3, 1.8-10.2), BMI ≥30 (OR = 2.9, 1.3-6.6), histopathological diagnosis of periampullary cancer (OR = 2.0, 1.1-3.7), and hospital volume <30 (OR = 3.9, 1.6-9.6)., Conclusions: Variations in mortality between hospitals after pancreatoduodenectomy were explained mainly by differences in FTR, rather than the incidence of major complications., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Auditing is an important tool to identify practice variation and 'best practices'. The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit is mandatory in all 18 Dutch centers for pancreatic surgery., Methods: Performance indicators and case-mix factors were identified by a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials (RCT's) and large series in pancreatic surgery. In addition, data dictionaries of two national audits, three institutional databases, and the Dutch national cancer registry were evaluated. Morbidity, mortality, and length of stay were analyzed of all pancreatic resections registered during the first two audit years. Case ascertainment was cross-checked with the Dutch healthcare inspectorate and key-variables validated in all centers., Results: Sixteen RCT's and three large series were found. Sixteen indicators and 20 case-mix factors were included in the audit. During 2014-2015, 1785 pancreatic resections were registered including 1345 pancreatoduodenectomies. Overall in-hospital mortality was 3.6%. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, mortality was 4.1%, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III morbidity was 29.9%, median (IQR) length of stay 12 (9-18) days, and readmission rate 16.0%. In total 97.2% of >40,000 variables validated were consistent with the medical charts., Conclusions: The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, with high quality data, reports good outcomes of pancreatic surgery on a national level., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be converted to laparoscopic Roux-and-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), which is currently the gold standard for bariatric surgery. Revisional LRYGB (rLRYGB) is associated with inferior results compared with primary LRYGB (pLRYGB), but the exact influence of the initial response to LAGB is unclear., Objectives: To compare follow-up outcomes after pLRYGB with rLRYGB in nonresponders of LAGB and rLRYGB in responders of LAGB., Setting: General-community teaching hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands., Methods: All patients who underwent pLRYGB and rLRYGB after LAGB were reviewed in an observational study. Postoperative outcomes, excess weight loss, total weight loss, and success and failure rate were compared in patients after pLRYGB and rLRYGB (both responders and nonresponders of LAGB) at 12, 24, and 36 months., Results: A total of 1285 primary patients, 96 nonresponders, and 120 responders were included. The median follow-up was 33.9±18.0 months. After 36 months, the mean percentage excess weight loss was significantly lower in the nonresponding group compared with the responding and primary groups (48.1% versus 58.2% versus 72.8%, P<.001); the total weight loss showed the same trend. The success rate was 38.2% versus 61.0% versus 81.6% respectively, P<.001. The failure rate was significantly higher after rLRYGB compared with pLRYGB (10.9% nonresponders, 8.5% responders, and 2.5% primary, P = .001)., Conclusion: Nonresponders of LAGB show inferior weight loss results after rLRYGB compared with responders of LAGB and pLRYGB at all moments of follow-up., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Currently, most surgical training programs are focused on the development and evaluation of professional competencies. Also in the Netherlands, competency-based training and assessment programs were introduced to restructure postgraduate medical training. The current surgical residency program is based on the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) competencies and uses assessment tools to evaluate residents' competence progression. In this study, we examined the attitude of surgical residents and attending surgeons toward a competency-based training and assessment program used to restructure general surgical training in the Netherlands in 2009., Methods: In 2011, all residents (n = 51) and attending surgeons (n = 108) in 1 training region, consisting of 7 hospitals, were surveyed. Participants were asked to rate the importance of the CanMEDS competencies and the suitability of the adopted assessment tools. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale and considered relevant when at least 80% of the respondents rated an item with a score of 4 or 5 (indicating a positive attitude). Reliability was evaluated by calculating the Cronbach's α, and the Mann-Whitney test was applied to assess differences between groups., Results: The response rate was 88% (n = 140). The CanMEDS framework demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.87). However, the importance of the competencies 'Manager' (78%) and 'Health Advocate' (70%) was undervalued. The assessment tools failed to achieve an acceptable reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.55), and individual tools were predominantly considered unsuitable for assessment. Exceptions were the tools 'in-training evaluation report' (91%) and 'objective structured assessment of technical skill' (82%). No significant differences were found between the residents and the attending surgeons., Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that, 2 years after the reform of the general surgical residency program, residents and attending surgeons in a large training region in the Netherlands do not acknowledge the importance of all CanMEDS competencies and consider the assessment tools generally unsuitable for competence evaluation., (Copyright © 2013 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a popular and effective restrictive bariatric procedure. However, with longer follow-up, it has become clear that a considerable number of patients require revisional surgery, of which Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed procedure. Studies that compared the outcomes of primary RYGB and revisional RYGB have not been conclusive. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in the 1-year outcomes between primary RYGB (prim-RYGB) and revisional RYGB after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (rev-RYGB) at a major training hospital in The Netherlands., Methods: All prim-RYGB and rev-RYGB procedures performed from 2007 to 2009 were analyzed. Data were collected regarding weight loss, hospitalization, operative time, postoperative complications, and co-morbidities., Results: A total of 292 RYGB procedures were performed: 66 rev-RYGB and 226 prim-RYGB procedures. The operative time was significantly shorter in the prim-RYGB group (136.6±37.5 versus 167.5±40.6 min; P<.0001). No significant differences were found in hospitalization time (4.4±1.7 versus 4.9±2.4 d; P= .063) or complication rate (14.7% versus 15.2%; P=.962). No deaths occurred in either group. The number of patients with resolved diabetes and hypertension did not differ between the 2 groups (50.1% versus 23.1%; P=.116; and 40.7% versus 25.0%; P=.384, respectively). Weight loss was significantly greater in the prim-RYGB group in terms of excess weight loss (71.6%±20.8% versus 48.4%±26.8%; P<.0001), body mass index reduction (13.0±3.8 versus 10.2±5.6 kg/m(2); P<.0001), absolute weight loss (37.4±11.5 versus 29.3±17.2 kg; P=.001), and percentage of weight loss (29.7%±8% versus 21.7%±11.5%; P<.0001)., Conclusion: rev-RYGB is a safe procedure with outcomes similar to those of prim-RYGB in terms of complication rate, hospitalization time, and effect on co-morbidity. Weight loss, however, was significantly less after rev-RYGB than after prim-RYGB., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infectious complications and associated mortality are a major concern in acute pancreatitis. Enteral administration of probiotics could prevent infectious complications, but convincing evidence is scarce. Our aim was to assess the effects of probiotic prophylaxis in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis., Methods: In this multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 298 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE II] score > or =8, Imrie score > or =3, or C-reactive protein >150 mg/L) were randomly assigned within 72 h of onset of symptoms to receive a multispecies probiotic preparation (n=153) or placebo (n=145), administered enterally twice daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the composite of infectious complications--ie, infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, urosepsis, or infected ascites--during admission and 90-day follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN38327949., Findings: One person in each group was excluded from analyses because of incorrect diagnoses of pancreatitis; thus, 152 individuals in the probiotics group and 144 in the placebo group were analysed. Groups were much the same at baseline in terms of patients' characteristics and disease severity. Infectious complications occurred in 46 (30%) patients in the probiotics group and 41 (28%) of those in the placebo group (relative risk 1.06, 95% CI 0.75-1.51). 24 (16%) patients in the probiotics group died, compared with nine (6%) in the placebo group (relative risk 2.53, 95% CI 1.22-5.25). Nine patients in the probiotics group developed bowel ischaemia (eight with fatal outcome), compared with none in the placebo group (p=0.004)., Interpretation: In patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis, probiotic prophylaxis with this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infectious complications and was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Probiotic prophylaxis should therefore not be administered in this category of patients.

A 25-year-old woman had signs of an acute surgical abdomen. Differential diagnoses were ectopic pregnancy and acute appendicitis. Diagnostic laparoscopy revealed an apparent inflamed appendix and left-sided unruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy. This case illustrates the importance of considering multiple pathologic disorders in a patient with an acute surgical abdomen, especially in pregnancy. Furthermore, it shows that laparoscopy constitutes the optimal treatment modality in patients with multiple diagnoses, because it combines multifocal diagnosis and treatment without additional postoperative morbidity.