Search

Contains fulltext : 69536.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Gallstones are a major cause of morbidity, and cholecystectomy is a commonly performed procedure. Minimal invasive procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and small-incision cholecystectomy (SIC), have replaced the classical open cholecystectomy. No differences have been found in primary outcome measures between LC and SIC, therefore secondary outcome measures have to be considered to determine preferences. The aim of our study was to examine health status applying evidence-based guidelines in LC and SIC in a randomised trial. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were included in a blind randomised trial. Operative procedures, anaesthesia, analgesics and postoperative care were standardised in order to limit bias. Questionnaires were filled in preoperatively, the first day postoperatively, and at outpatients follow-up at 2, 6 and 12 weeks. In accordance with evidence-based guidelines, the generic short form (SF-36) and the disease-specific gastrointestinal quality-of-life index (GIQLI) questionnaires were used in addition to the body image questionnaire (BIQ). RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were randomised between LC (120) and SIC (137). Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat (converted procedures included) and also distinguishing converted from minimal invasive (nonconverted) procedures. Questionnaires were obtained with a response rate varying from 87.5% preoperatively to 77.4% three months postoperatively. Except for two time-specific measurements in one SF-36 subscale, there were no differences between LC and SIC. There were significant differences in several subscales in all three questionnaires comparing minimal invasive versus converted procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Applying adequate methodological quality and evidence-based guidelines (by using SF-36 and GIQLI), there are no significant differences in health status between LC and SIC.

Inaugural address Radboud University Nijmegen, Contains fulltext : 65567_incotrooi.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 71360.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), 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 w

Contains fulltext : 49444.pdf ( ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: The initial treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis is conservative. Intervention is indicated in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In the Netherlands, the standard intervention is necrosectomy by laparotomy followed by continuous postoperative lavage (CPL). In recent years several minimally invasive strategies have been introduced. So far, these strategies have never been compared in a randomised controlled trial. The PANTER study (PAncreatitis, Necrosectomy versus sTEp up appRoach) was conceived to yield the evidence needed for a considered policy decision. METHODS/DESIGN: 88 patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomly allocated to either group A) minimally invasive 'step-up approach' starting with drainage followed, if necessary, by videoscopic assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) or group B) maximal necrosectomy by laparotomy. Both procedures are followed by CPL. Patients will be recruited from 20 hospitals, including all Dutch university medical centres, over a 3-year period. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients suffering from postoperative major morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints are complications, new onset sepsis, length of hospital and intensive care stay, quality of life and total (direct and indirect) costs. To demonstrate that the 'step-up approach' can reduce the major morbidity and mortality rate from 45 to 16%, with 80% power at 5% alpha, a total sample size of 88 patients was calculated. DISCUSSION: The PANTER-study is a randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of a minimally invasive 'step-up approach' in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Item does not contain fulltext