ObjectiveTo review the effectiveness of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with obstructive jaundice resulting from tumors. Summary Background DataThis was a systematic review, including a meta-analysis, of randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies conducted worldwide and published between 1966 and September 2001, classified on methodologic strength and subdivided into level 1 (randomized controlled trials) and level 2 (comparative cohort studies). MethodsComparison was made of PBD versus no PBD in jaundiced patients undergoing resection of a tumor. Outcome measures were in-hospital death rate, overall complications resulting from the treatment modality (drainage-and surgery-related complications), and hospital stay. Effect sizes were calculated and combined in meta-analyses. Relative differences (%) were calculated to compare effects on outcome measures. ResultsFive randomized controlled studies comprising 302 patients met the inclusion criteria for level 1 studies, and 18 cohort studies comprising 2,853 patients met the criteria for level 2 studies. Meta-analysis of level 1 studies showed no difference in the overall death rate between patients who had PBD and those who had surgery without PBD. The overall complication rate, however, was significantly adversely affected by PBD compared with surgery without PBD. At level 2, there was no difference in the death rate between the two treatment modalities. The overall complication rate, however, was significantly adversely affected by PBD compared with surgery without PBD. If PBD had been without complications, then complications would be in favor of drainage based on level 1 studies, and no difference based on level 2 studies. Further, PBD was not able to reduce the length of postoperative hospital stay compared with surgery without PBD; instead, it prolonged the stay. ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that PBD with current standards for patients with obstructive jaundice resulting from tumors carries no benefit and should not be performed routinely. The potential benefit of PBD in terms of postoperative rates of death and complications does not outweigh the disadvantage of the drainage procedure. Only if PBD-related complications could be reduced by 27% and consequently diminish hospital stay could PBD be beneficial. Further randomized controlled trials with improved PBD techniques are necessary.

BackgroundRecently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis).Methods/DesignIn this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs.DiscussionThe Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR2037

From 1983 to 1992 a total of 240 patients with a pancreatic head tumor underwent laparotomy to assess the resectability of the tumor. In 44 patients the tumor was not resected because of distant metastases (n = 20) or major vascular involvement or local tumor infiltration (n = 24) not detected during the preoperative workup. A palliative biliary and gastric bypass was performed in these patients. All other patients underwent a subtotal (Whipple's resection, n = 164) or total (n = 32) pancreaticoduo-denectomy. However, in 56 cases after Whipple's resection, microscopic examination of the specimen showed tumor invasion in the dissection margins. For this reason, these resections were considered palliative. We compared hospital mortality, morbidity, and long-term survival of patients who had undergone a biliary and gastric bypass for a locally advanced tumor (group A, n = 24) with a matched group of patients who had undergone a macroscopically radical Whipple's resection that on microscopic examination proved to be nonradical (group B, n = 36). Both groups were comparable with regard to age (mean 61 years in both groups), duration of symptoms (8 weeks in group A and 10 weeks in group B), and tumor size (mean 4.25 cm in group A and 4.30 cm in group B). Median postoperative hospital stay was 18 days in group A and 25 days in group B. Postoperative complications (intraabdominal abscess, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, anastomotic leakage, delayed gastric emptying) occurred in 33% of patients in group A and in 44% of patients in group B. Hospital mortality was 0% and 3% in group A and group B, respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Quantitative PCR for E. faecalis performed on drain fluid may be an objective, affordable and fast screening tool for symptomatic colorectal anastomotic leakage.

Anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery is correlated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Although many studies focus on risk factors and detection, studies on the treatment strategy for colorectal anastomotic leakage are scarce. A national questionnaire amongst 350 members of the Dutch Society for Gastrointestinal Surgery was undertaken on the current treatment of colorectal anastomotic leakage. The response was 40% after two anonymous rounds. 27% of the respondents state that a leaking anastomosis above the level of the promontory should be salvaged in ASA 1-2 patients <80 years of age, for ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age this percentage is 7.3%. For an anastomosis under the promontory, 50% of the respondents choose preserving the anastomosis for ASA 1-2 compared to 17% for ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age. In ASA 1-2 patients with a local abscess after a rectum resection without protective ileostomy, 31% of the respondents will create an protective ileostomy, 40% break down the anastomosis to create a definite colostomy, in ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age 14% of the respondents create a protective ileostomy and 63% a definitive colostomy. In ASA 1-2 patients with peritonitis after a rectum resection with deviating ileostomy, 31% prefer a laparotomy for lavage and repair of the anastomosis, 25% for lavage without repair and 36% of the respondents prefer to break down the anastomosis. When the patient is ASA 3 and/or >80 years of age, 13% prefer repair, 9% a lavage and 74% breaking down the anastomosis. This questionnaire shows that in contrast to older people, more surgeons make an effort to preserve the anastomosis in younger people.

Anastomotic leakage was preceded by a significantly higher AUC and mean value of lactate levels during the first 5 post-operative days. To identify cut-off values for clinical use, pooling of data is necessary.

No abstract

BackgroundThe surgical treatment of large midline incisional hernias remains a challenge. The aim of this report is to present the results of a new technique for large midline incisional hernia repair which combines the components-separation technique with a double-prosthetic-mesh repair.MethodsThe records of all consecutive patients who received a double-mesh combined with the components-separation technique for ventral hernia repair were reviewed. The clinical, surgical, and follow-up data were analyzed.ResultsNine patients [3 women, 6 men; median age = 62 years (range = 26–77)] were included in the study. Median transverse defect size was 20 cm (range = 15–25). The median duration of hospital stay was 8 days (range = 5–17). Postoperative complications occurred in 66% (6/9). Follow-up [median = 13 months (range = 3–49)] showed no recurrent hernias, but one patient had a small hernia after a relaparotomy for colon carcinoma recurrence. The overall occurrence of wound infections was 44% (4/9). There was no mortality.ConclusionThe components-separation technique in combination with a double-mesh has shown a low recurrence rate in the short-term follow-up. However, there is a considerable occurrence of postoperative wound infections. Long-term results of the hernia recurrence rate have to be awaited.