CXCR6 marks a novel subset of T-bet(lo)Eomes(hi) natural killer cells residing in human liver

Natural killer cells (NK) are highly enriched in the human liver, where they can regulate immunity and immunopathology. We probed them for a liver-resident subset, distinct from conventional bone-marrow-derived NK. CXCR6+ NK were strikingly enriched in healthy and diseased liver compared to blood (p < 0.0001). Human hepatic CXCR6+ NK had an immature phenotype (predominantly CD56^brightCD16−CD57−), and expressed the tissue-residency marker CD69. CXCR6+ NK produced fewer cytotoxic mediators and pro-inflammatory cytokines than the non-liver-specific CXCR6− fraction. Instead CXCR6+ NK could upregulate TRAIL, a key death ligand in hepatitis pathogenesis. CXCR6 demarcated liver NK into two transcriptionally distinct populations: T-bet^hiEomes^lo(CXCR6−) and T-bet^loEomes^hi(CXCR6+); the latter was virtually absent in the periphery. The small circulating CXCR6+ subset was predominantly T-bet^hiEomes^lo, suggesting its lineage was closer to CXCR6− peripheral than CXCR6+ liver NK. These data reveal a large subset of human liver-resident T-bet^loEomes^hi NK, distinguished by their surface expression of CXCR6, adapted for hepatic tolerance and inducible anti-viral immunity.

Long-term survival with repeated resections of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in a non-cirrhotic liver: case report and brief review of the literature

A healthy and asymptomatic 55-year-old woman underwent a complete (R0) non-anatomical resection of an incidentally detected solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a non-cirrhotic liver. Six years following the initial R0 non-anatomical resection, intrahepatic recurrence was diagnosed and the patient underwent a second R0 non-anatomical resection. At 12.5 years following the initial resection, a further intrahepatic recurrence was diagnosed, which was once again completely resected by left lateral hepatectomy. This represents one of the longest reported periods between initial resection and HCC recurrence, following repeated R0 resections in the absence of cirrhosis. The appropriate surveillance period and genetic testing protocol for such cases remains to be established.

Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.

Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic pseudocysts are walled-off peripancreatic fluid collections. There is considerable uncertainty about how pancreatic pseudocysts should be treated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015. We also searched the references of included trials and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with pancreatic pseudocysts, regardless of size, presence of symptoms, or aetiology. We placed no restrictions on blinding, language, or publication status of the trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on an available-case analysis for direct comparisons, using fixed-effect and random-effect models. We also conducted indirect comparisons (rather than network meta-analysis), since there were no outcomes for which direct and indirect evidence were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs, with 177 participants, in this review. After one participant was excluded, 176 participants were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage (88 participants), endoscopic drainage (44 participants), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage (24 participants), and open surgical drainage (20 participants). The comparisons included endoscopic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (two trials), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage alone (one trial), and open surgical drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (one trial). The participants were mostly symptomatic, with pancreatic pseudocysts resulting from acute and chronic pancreatitis of varied aetiology. The mean size of the pseudocysts ranged between 70 mm and 155 mm across studies. Although the trials appeared to include similar types of participants for all comparisons, we were unable to assess this statistically, since there were no direct and indirect results for any of the comparisons.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. One death occurred in the endoscopic drainage group (1/44; 2.3%), due to bleeding. There were no deaths in the other groups. The differences in the serious adverse events were imprecise. Short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL; four weeks to three months) was worse (MD -21.00; 95% CI -33.21 to -8.79; participants = 40; studies = 1; range: 0 to 100; higher score indicates better) and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 8040 USD; 95% CI 3020 to 13,060; participants = 40; studies = 1). There were fewer adverse events in the EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage alone (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.73; participants = 47; studies = 1), or the endoscopic drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61). Participants with EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage also had shorter hospital stays compared to EUS-guided drainage alone (MD -8.10 days; 95% CI -9.79 to -6.41; participants = 47; studies = 1), endoscopic drainage (indirect comparison: MD -7.10 days; 95% CI -9.38 to -4.82), or open surgical drainage group (indirect comparison: MD -12.30 days; 95% CI -14.48 to -10.12). The open surgical drainage group had longer hospital stays than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 4.20 days; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58; participants = 40; studies = 1); the endoscopic drainage group had longer hospital stays than the open drainage group (indirect comparison: -5.20 days; 95% CI -7.26 to -3.14). The need for additional invasive interventions was higher for the endoscopic drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (OR 11.13; 95% CI 2.85 to 43.44; participants = 89; studies = 2), and the open drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 23.69; 95% CI 1.40 to 400.71). The differences between groups were imprecise for the other comparisons that could be performed. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term HRQoL (three months to one year), long-term HRQoL (longer than one year), time-to-return to normal activities, or time-to-return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence suggested that the differences in mortality and serious adverse events between treatments were imprecise. Low-quality evidence suggested that short-term HRQoL (four weeks to three months) was worse, and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage group. Low-quality or very low-quality evidence suggested that EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage led to fewer adverse events than EUS-guided or endoscopic drainage, and shorter hospital stays when compared to EUS-guided drainage, endoscopic drainage, or open surgical drainage, while EUS-guided drainage led to shorter hospital stays than open surgical drainage. Low-quality evidence suggested that there was a higher need for additional invasive procedures with endoscopic drainage than EUS-guided drainage, while it was lower in the open surgical drainage than in the endoscopic drainage group.Further RCTs are needed to compare EUS-guided drainage, with or without nasocystic drainage, in symptomatic patients with pancreatic pseudocysts that require treatment. Future trials should include patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, serious adverse events, HRQoL, hospital stay, return-to-normal activity, number of work days lost, and the need for additional procedures, for a minimum follow-up period of two to three years.

Management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic pseudocysts are walled-off peripancreatic fluid collections. There is considerable uncertainty about how pancreatic pseudocysts should be treated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different management strategies for pancreatic pseudocysts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015. We also searched the references of included trials and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with pancreatic pseudocysts, regardless of size, presence of symptoms, or aetiology. We placed no restrictions on blinding, language, or publication status of the trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on an available-case analysis for direct comparisons, using fixed-effect and random-effect models. We also conducted indirect comparisons (rather than network meta-analysis), since there were no outcomes for which direct and indirect evidence were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs, with 177 participants, in this review. After one participant was excluded, 176 participants were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage (88 participants), endoscopic drainage (44 participants), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage (24 participants), and open surgical drainage (20 participants). The comparisons included endoscopic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (two trials), EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage versus EUS-guided drainage alone (one trial), and open surgical drainage versus EUS-guided drainage (one trial). The participants were mostly symptomatic, with pancreatic pseudocysts resulting from acute and chronic pancreatitis of varied aetiology. The mean size of the pseudocysts ranged between 70 mm and 155 mm across studies. Although the trials appeared to include similar types of participants for all comparisons, we were unable to assess this statistically, since there were no direct and indirect results for any of the comparisons.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. One death occurred in the endoscopic drainage group (1/44; 2.3%), due to bleeding. There were no deaths in the other groups. The differences in the serious adverse events were imprecise. Short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL; four weeks to three months) was worse (MD -21.00; 95% CI -33.21 to -8.79; participants = 40; studies = 1; range: 0 to 100; higher score indicates better) and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 8040 USD; 95% CI 3020 to 13,060; participants = 40; studies = 1). There were fewer adverse events in the EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage alone (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.73; participants = 47; studies = 1), or the endoscopic drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61). Participants with EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage also had shorter hospital stays compared to EUS-guided drainage alone (MD -8.10 days; 95% CI -9.79 to -6.41; participants = 47; studies = 1), endoscopic drainage (indirect comparison: MD -7.10 days; 95% CI -9.38 to -4.82), or open surgical drainage group (indirect comparison: MD -12.30 days; 95% CI -14.48 to -10.12). The open surgical drainage group had longer hospital stays than the EUS-guided drainage group (MD 4.20 days; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58; participants = 40; studies = 1); the endoscopic drainage group had longer hospital stays than the open drainage group (indirect comparison: -5.20 days; 95% CI -7.26 to -3.14). The need for additional invasive interventions was higher for the endoscopic drainage group than the EUS-guided drainage group (OR 11.13; 95% CI 2.85 to 43.44; participants = 89; studies = 2), and the open drainage group (indirect comparison: OR 23.69; 95% CI 1.40 to 400.71). The differences between groups were imprecise for the other comparisons that could be performed. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term HRQoL (three months to one year), long-term HRQoL (longer than one year), time-to-return to normal activities, or time-to-return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence suggested that the differences in mortality and serious adverse events between treatments were imprecise. Low-quality evidence suggested that short-term HRQoL (four weeks to three months) was worse, and the costs were higher in the open surgical drainage group than in the EUS-guided drainage group. Low-quality or very low-quality evidence suggested that EUS-guided drainage with nasocystic drainage led to fewer adverse events than EUS-guided or endoscopic drainage, and shorter hospital stays when compared to EUS-guided drainage, endoscopic drainage, or open surgical drainage, while EUS-guided drainage led to shorter hospital stays than open surgical drainage. Low-quality evidence suggested that there was a higher need for additional invasive procedures with endoscopic drainage than EUS-guided drainage, while it was lower in the open surgical drainage than in the endoscopic drainage group.Further RCTs are needed to compare EUS-guided drainage, with or without nasocystic drainage, in symptomatic patients with pancreatic pseudocysts that require treatment. Future trials should include patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, serious adverse events, HRQoL, hospital stay, return-to-normal activity, number of work days lost, and the need for additional procedures, for a minimum follow-up period of two to three years.

Protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial of recipient remote ischaemic preconditioning in orthotopic liver transplantation (RIPCOLT trial)

Abstract

Ischaemic reperfusion (IR) injury is a major cause of graft loss, morbidity and mortality following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Demand for liver transplantation has resulted in increasing use of marginal grafts that are more prone to IR injury. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces IR injury in experimental models, but recipient RIPC has not been evaluated clinically.

Methods

A single-centre double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) is planned to test the hypothesis that recipient RIPC will reduce IR injury. RIPC will be performed following recipient anaesthetic induction but prior to skin incision. The protocol involves 3 cycles of 5 min of lower limb occlusion with a pneumatic tourniquet inflated to 200 mmHg alternating with 5 min of reperfusion. In the control group, the sham will involve the cuff being placed on the thigh but without being inflated.

The primary endpoint is ability to recruit patients to the trial and safety of RIPC. The key secondary endpoint is a reduction in serum aspartate transferase levels on the third post-operative day.

Discussion

RIPC is a promising strategy to reduce IR injury in liver transplant recipients as there is a clear experimental basis, and the intervention is both inexpensive and easy to perform. This is the first trial to investigate RIPC in liver transplant recipients.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00796588

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13737-016-0033-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the only treatment with the potential for long-term survival and cure of pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection is provided as distal pancreatectomy for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas. It can be performed by laparoscopic or open surgery. In operations on other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative complications and oncological clearance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for people undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the body or tail of the pancreas, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and trials registers until June 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. We also searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in the review RCTs and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs on this topic. We included in this review 12 non-randomised studies that compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (1576 participants: 394 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1182 underwent open distal pancreatectomy); 11 studies (1506 participants: 353 undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 1153 undergoing open distal pancreatectomy) provided information for one or more outcomes. All of these studies were retrospective cohort-like studies or case-control studies. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for all reported outcomes.Differences in short-term mortality (laparoscopic group: 1/329 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) vs open group: 11/1122 (1%); OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.17; 1451 participants; nine studies; I(2) = 0%), long-term mortality (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 277 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with serious adverse events (laparoscopic group: 7/89 (adjusted proportion: 8.8%) vs open group: 6/117 (5.1%); OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 6.06; 206 participants; three studies; I(2) = 0%), proportion of people with a clinically significant pancreatic fistula (laparoscopic group: 9/109 (adjusted proportion: 7.7%) vs open group: 9/137 (6.6%); OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.02; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 61%) were imprecise. Differences in recurrence at maximal follow-up (laparoscopic group: 37/81 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 36.3%) vs open group: 59/103 (49.5%); OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.05; 184 participants; two studies; I(2) = 13%), adverse events of any severity (laparoscopic group: 33/109 (adjusted proportion: 31.7%) vs open group: 45/137 (32.8%); OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; 246 participants; four studies; I(2) = 18%) and proportion of participants with positive resection margins (laparoscopic group: 49/333 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 14.3%) vs open group: 208/1133 (18.4%); OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.10; 1466 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 6%) were also imprecise. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter by 2.43 days in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (MD -2.43 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.73; 1068 participants; five studies; I(2) = 0%). None of the included studies reported quality of life at any point in time, recurrence within six months, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work or blood transfusion requirements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no randomised controlled trials have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for patients with pancreatic cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Currently, no information is available to determine a causal association in the differences between laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy. Observed differences may be a result of confounding due to laparoscopic operation on less extensive cancer and open surgery on more extensive cancer. In addition, differences in length of hospital stay are relevant only if laparoscopic and open surgery procedures are equivalent oncologically. This information is not available currently. Thus, randomised controlled trials are needed to compare laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy with at least two to three years of follow-up. Such studies should include patient-oriented outcomes such as short-term mortality and long-term mortality (at least two to three years); health-related quality of life; complications and the sequelae of complications; resection margins; measures of earlier postoperative recovery such as length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and time to return to work (in those who are employed); and recurrence of cancer.

Alterations in coagulation following major liver resection

The international normalised ratio is frequently raised in patients who have undergone major liver resection, and is assumed to represent a potential bleeding risk. However, these patients have an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events, despite conventional coagulation tests indicating hypocoagulability. This prospective, observational study of patients undergoing major hepatic resection analysed the serial changes in coagulation in the early postoperative period. Thrombin generation parameters and viscoelastic tests of coagulation (thromboelastometry) remained within normal ranges throughout the study period. Levels of the procoagulant factors II, V, VII and X initially fell, but V and X returned to or exceeded normal range by postoperative day five. Levels of factor VIII and Von Willebrand factor were significantly elevated from postoperative day one (p < 0.01). Levels of the anticoagulants, protein C and antithrombin remained significantly depressed on postoperative day five (p = 0.01). Overall, the imbalance between pro- and anticoagulant factors suggested a prothrombotic environment in the early postoperative period.

Duodenum-preserving pancreatic resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy for chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments.

Pregabalin for decreasing pancreatic pain in chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic abdominal pain is one of the major symptoms in people with chronic pancreatitis. The role of pregabalin in people with chronic pancreatic pain due to chronic pancreatitis is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in people with chronic abdominal pain due to chronic pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, issue 6, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, trials registers until June 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatic pain due to chronic pancreatitis, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study, funded by Pfizer, met the inclusion criteria for the review. A total of 64 participants (with chronic pain due to chronic pancreatitis) were randomly assigned to receive escalating doses of pregabalin (150 mg per day to 600 mg per day; 34 participants) or matching placebo (30 participants). Participants received pregabalin or placebo for three weeks on an outpatient basis; the outcomes were measured at the end of the treatment (i.e. three weeks from commencement of treatment). Potential participants taking concomitant analgesic medication and expected to stay on a stable regime during the trial were allowed to enter the study. This trial was at low risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or moderate.Only the short-term outcomes were available in this trial. The medium and long-term outcomes, number of work days lost, and length of hospital stay due to admissions for pain control were not available. This trial found that the changes in opiate use (MD -26.00 mg; 95% CI -47.36 to -4.64; participants = 64; moderate-quality evidence), and pain score percentage changes from baseline (MD -12.00; 95% CI -21.82 to -2.18; participants = 64; moderate-quality evidence) were better in participants taking pregabalin compared to those taking placebo. This trial also found that there were more adverse events in participants taking pregabalin compared to those taking placebo (RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.43; participants = 64). The differences between pregabalin and placebo were imprecise for short-term health-related quality of life measured with the EORTC CLQ-30 questionnaire (MD 11.40; 95% CI -3.28 to 26.08; participants = 64; moderate-quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (RR 1.76; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.96; participants = 64; low-quality evidence), and proportion of people requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.62; participants = 64; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, short-term use of pregabalin decreases short-term opiate use, and short-term pain scores, but increases the adverse events compared to placebo, in people with chronic pain due to chronic pancreatitis. The clinical implication of the decreases in short-term opiate use and short-term pain scores is not known.Future trials assessing the role of pregabalin in decreasing chronic pain in chronic pancreatitis should assess the medium- or long-term effects of pregabalin and should include outcomes such as, quality of life, treatment-related adverse events, number of work days lost, number of hospital admissions, and the length of hospital stay, in addition to pain scores, to assess the clinical and socioeconomic impact.

Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

'Fast-track surgery' or 'enhanced recovery protocol' or 'fast-track rehabilitation', incorporating one or more elements of preoperative education, pain relief, early mobilisation, enteral nutrition and growth factors, may improve health-related quality of life and reduce length of hospital stay and costs. The role of enhanced recovery protocols in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of enhanced recovery protocols compared with standard care (or usual practice) in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5, based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, and nine studies provided information on one or more outcomes for the review. A total of 1014 participants were randomly assigned to the enhanced recovery protocol (499 participants) or standard care (515 participants) in the nine RCTs. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants with high performance status undergoing different upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. Eight trials incorporated more than one element of the enhanced recovery protocol. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term health-related quality of life(three months to one year), time to return to normal activity, or time to return to work. The difference between the enhanced recovery protocol and standard care were imprecise for short-term mortality (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/425 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 1/443 (0.2%); seven trials; 868 participants; RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.44 to 17.73; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/157 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 0/184 (0.0%); two trials; 341 participants; RR 5.57; 95% CI 0.68 to 45.89; very low quality evidence), number of serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 34/421 (8 per 100 participants); standard care: 46/438 (11 per 100 participants); seven trials; 859 participants; rate ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; very low quality evidence), health-related quality of life (four trials; 373 participants; SMD 0.29; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.62; very low quality evidence) and hospital readmissions (enhanced recovery protocol: 14/355 (adjusted proportion = 3.3%); standard care: 9/378 (2.4%); seven trials; 733 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.87; very low quality evidence). The enhanced recovery protocol group had a lower proportion of people with mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 31/254 (adjusted proportion = 10.9%); standard care: 51/271 (18.8%); four trials; 525 participants; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85; low quality evidence), fewer number of mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 69/499 (13 per 100 participants); standard care: 128/515 (25 per 100 participants); nine trials; 1014 participants; rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; low quality evidence), shorter length of hospital stay (nine trials; 1014 participants; MD -2.19 days; 95% CI -2.53 to -1.85; low quality evidence) and lower costs (four trials; 282 participants; MD USD -6300; 95% CI -8400 to -4200; low quality evidence) than standard care group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, enhanced recovery protocols may reduce length of hospital stay and costs (primarily because of reduction in hospital stay) in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. However, the validity of the results is uncertain because of the risk of bias in the trials and the way the outcomes were measured. Future RCTs should be conducted with low risk of bias, and measure clinically important outcomes for including the three months to one year period.

Biological and Prognostic Significance of the Morphological Types and Vascular Patterns in Colorectal Liver Metastases (CRLM): Looking Beyond the Tumor Margin

Patients with encapsulated colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have a better prognosis than those without a capsule. The reason for the encapsulation is unknown. Hypoxia inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) increases tumor angiogenesis and tumor tissue expression is associated with reduced survival. Our aim was to determine whether the good prognosis of encapsulated CRLM is associated with reduced HIF-1α expression by the cancer.The study selected only patients who had not undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to a potentially curative hepatectomy for CRLM. From 30 selected patients, serial sections were cut from a single randomly selected metastasis. Morphology was assessed following H&E staining. Tumor hypoxia, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), proliferation, and microvascular density (MVD) were assessed by immunostaining for HIF-1α and carbonic anhydrase-9 (CA-9), VEGF, Ki67, and cluster of differentiation-31, respectively. MVD was calculated in the vascular hot spots. Pathology was reported without clinical outcome information. Actual long-term survival was recorded.Thirteen (43%) of the cancers were encapsulated CRLM containing glands which were large, complex, and cribriform. Thirteen (43%) were infiltrative CRLM and their glands were small, closely packed, and rounded with vessels in the interglandular fibrous tissue with no capsule; 3 (10%) had a mixed picture. Encapsulated CRLM had a higher expression of HIF-1α (58% vs 8%, P = 0.03), CA-9 (42% vs 0%, P = 0.04), and VEGF (92% vs 25%, P = 0.02). MVD was lower in the encapsulated CRLM group (37 mm vs 143 mm, P < 0.001). The median follow-up was 115 months. The encapsulated CRLM group had a better overall and 5-year survival (relative hazard: 0.58, P = 0.057 and hazard ratio: 0.52, P = 0.044).There are 2 main morphological appearances of CRLM which have very different long-term survival following liver resection surgery. The morphology is associated with differences in expression of HIF-1α, CA-9, VEGF, and angiogenesis.

Utilizing confocal laser endomicroscopy for evaluating the adequacy of laparoscopic liver ablation

Background

Laparoscopic liver ablation therapy can be used for the treatment of primary and secondary liver malignancy. The increased incidence of cancer recurrence associated with this approach, has been attributed to the inability of monitoring the extent of ablated liver tissue.

Methods

The feasibility of assessing liver ablation with probe‐based confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) was studied in a porcine model of laparoscopic microwave liver ablation. Following the intravenous injection of the fluorophores fluorescein and indocyanine green, CLE images were recorded at 488 nm and 660 nm wavelength and compared to liver histology. Statistical analysis was performed to assess if fluorescence intensity change can predict the presence of ablated liver tissue.

Results

CLE imaging of fluorescein at 488 nm provided good visualization of the hepatic microvasculature; whereas, CLE imaging of indocyanine green at 660 nm enabled detailed visualization of hepatic sinusoid architecture and interlobular septations. Fluorescence intensity as measured in relative fluorescence units was found to be 75–100% lower in ablated compared to healthy liver regions. General linear mixed modeling and ROC analysis found the decrease in fluorescence to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic, dual wavelength CLE imaging using two different fluorophores enables clinically useful visualization of multiple liver tissue compartments, in greater detail than is possible at a single wavelength. CLE imaging may provide valuable intraoperative information on the extent of laparoscopic liver ablation. Lasers Surg. Med. 48:299–310, 2016. © 2015 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

High serum Aspartate transaminase levels on day 3 postliver transplantation correlates with graft and patient survival and would be a valid surrogate for outcome in liver transplantation clinical trials

Aspartate transaminase, a liver specific enzyme released into serum following acute liver injury, is used in experimental organ preservation studies as a measure of liver IR injury. Whether post-operative serum transaminases are a good indicator of IR injury and subsequent graft and patient survival in human liver transplantation remains controversial. A single centre prospectively collected liver transplant database was analysed for the period 1988-2012. All patients were followed up for 5 years or until graft failure. Transaminase levels on the 1st, 3rd and 7th post-operative days were correlated with the patient demographics, operative outcomes, post-operative complications and both graft and patient survival via a binary logistic regression analysis. Graft and patient survival at 3 months was 80.3% and 87.5%. AST levels on the 3rd (P = 0.005) and 7th (P = 0.001) post-operative days correlated with early graft loss. Patients were grouped by their AST level (day 3): <107iU, 107-1213iU, 1213-2744iU and >2744iU. The incidence of graft loss at 3 months was 10%, 12%. 27% and 59% and 1-year patient mortality was 12%, 14%, 27% and 62%. Day 3 AST levels correlate with patient and graft outcome post-liver transplantation and would be a suitable surrogate endpoint for clinical trials in liver transplantation.

A diaphragmatic retroperitoneal cyst

Diaphragmatic lesions are usually congenital bronchogenic cysts. A patient with a known diaphragmatic cyst presented with new onset right upper quadrant pain. Repeat imaging showed enlargement of the cyst, the CA19-9 cancer marker was raised at 312 iu/ml (normal: <27 iu/ml) and positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography showed focally increased uptake in the cystic wall. In view of symptoms and risk of neoplasia, the lesion was excised. Histology showed a benign epidermoid cyst. Features falsely suggesting neoplasia have been reported previously with benign splenic cysts but not with a benign diaphragmatic epidermoid cyst.

A Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatment strategies aiming to decrease blood loss during liver resection

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative haemorrhage remains one of the major risks during liver resection, and perioperative blood loss and blood transfusion are important factors affecting perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to compare treatment strategies aiming to decrease blood loss during hepatectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify randomised controlled trials reporting on the method of vascular occlusion, parenchymal transection, and management of the cut surface during liver resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using WinBUGS.

RESULTS

Seven trials reporting on 496 participants randomised to seven treatment strategies were analysed. Continuous vascular occlusion resulted in lower blood loss compared to no vascular occlusion when parenchymal transection was performed with clamp-crush and no fibrin sealant was used for the cut surface. People undergoing liver resection by continuous vascular occlusion had decreased amounts of blood transfused than people with intermittent vascular occlusion when parenchymal transection was performed with clamp-crush and no fibrin sealant. There was no significant difference in proportion of people transfused, mortality, or hospital stay between the different strategies. There were significantly more serious adverse events when surgery was performed using radiofrequency dissecting sealer compared with standard clamp-crush method in the absence of vascular occlusion and fibrin sealant.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous vascular occlusion during hepatectomy results in decreased blood loss and decreased blood transfusion requirements. Further studies are needed to compare treatment strategies aiming to decrease blood loss, defined by their method of vascular occlusion, parenchymal transection, and management of the cut surface.

Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds

BACKGROUND

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure (primary closure). The surgeon covers the closed surgical wound with either a dressing or adhesive tape. The dressing can act as a physical barrier to protect the wound until the continuity of the skin is restored (within about 48 hours) and to absorb exudate from the wound, keeping it dry and clean, and preventing bacterial contamination from the external environment. Some studies have found that the moist environment created by some dressings accelerates wound healing, although others believe that the moist environment can be a disadvantage, as excessive exudate can cause maceration (softening and deterioration) of the wound and the surrounding healthy tissue. The utility of dressing surgical wounds beyond 48 hours of surgery is, therefore, controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of removing a dressing covering a closed surgical incision site within 48 hours permanently (early dressing removal) or beyond 48 hours of surgery permanently with interim dressing changes allowed (delayed dressing removal), on surgical site infection.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2015 we searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further potentially-relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted with people of any age and sex, undergoing a surgical procedure, who had their wound closed and a dressing applied. We included only trials that compared early versus delayed dressing removal. We excluded trials that included people with contaminated or dirty wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised studies, and other study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics of the trial participants, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes for each trial. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We used RevMan 5 software to perform these calculations.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials were identified for inclusion in this review. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Three trials provided information for this review. Overall, this review included 280 people undergoing planned surgery. Participants were randomised to early dressing removal (removal of the wound dressing within the 48 hours following surgery) (n = 140) or delayed dressing removal (continued dressing of the wound beyond 48 hours) (n = 140) in the three trials. There were no statistically significant differences between the early dressing removal group and delayed dressing removal group in the proportion of people who developed superficial surgical site infection within 30 days (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.28), superficial wound dehiscence within 30 days (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.16) or serious adverse events within 30 days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51). No deep wound infection or deep wound dehiscence occurred in any of the participants in the trials that reported this outcome. None of the trials reported quality of life. The hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -2.82 to -1.18) and the total cost of treatment significantly less (MD EUR -36.00; 95% CI -59.81 to -12.19) in the early dressing removal group than in the delayed dressing removal group in the only trial that reported these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The early removal of dressings from clean or clean contaminated surgical wounds appears to have no detrimental effect on outcomes. However, it should be noted that the point estimate supporting this statement is based on very low quality evidence from three small randomised controlled trials, and the confidence intervals around this estimate were wide. Early dressing removal may result in a significantly shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced costs, than covering the surgical wound with wound dressings beyond the first 48 hours after surgery, according to very low quality evidence from one small randomised controlled trial. Further randomised controlled trials of low risk of bias are necessary to investigate whether dressings are necessary after 48 hours in different types of surgery and levels of contamination and investigate whether antibiotic therapy influences the outcome.

Early versus delayed post-operative bathing or showering to prevent wound complications

BACKGROUND

Many people undergo surgical operations during their life-time, which result in surgical wounds. After an operation the incision is closed using stiches, staples, steri-strips or an adhesive glue. Usually, towards the end of the surgical procedure and before the patient leaves the operating theatre, the surgeon covers the closed surgical wound using gauze and adhesive tape or an adhesive tape containing a pad (a wound dressing) that covers the surgical wound. There is currently no guidance about when the wound can be made wet by post-operative bathing or showering. Early bathing may encourage early mobilisation of the patient, which is good after most types of operation. Avoiding post-operative bathing or showering for two to three days may result in accumulation of sweat and dirt on the body. Conversely, early washing of the surgical wound may have an adverse effect on healing, for example by irritating or macerating the wound, and disturbing the healing environment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (such as potential improvements to quality of life) and harms (potentially increased wound-related morbidity) of early post-operative bathing or showering (i.e. within 48 hours after surgery, the period during which epithelialisation of the wound occurs) compared with delayed post-operative bathing or showering (i.e. no bathing or showering for over 48 hours after surgery) in patients with closed surgical wounds.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (30th June 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised trials conducted in patients who had undergone any surgical procedure and had surgical closure of their wounds, irrespective of the location of the wound and whether or not the wound was dressed. We excluded trials if they included patients with contaminated, dirty or infected wounds and those that included open wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials, cohort studies and case-control studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the characteristics of the patients included in the trials, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes from each trial. For binary outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables we planned to calculate the mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. For count data outcomes, we planned to calculate the rate ratio (RaR) with 95% CI. We used RevMan 5 software for performing these calculations.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial was identified for inclusion in this review. This trial was at a high risk of bias. This trial included 857 patients undergoing minor skin excision surgery in the primary care setting. The wounds were sutured after the excision. Patients were randomised to early post-operative bathing (dressing to be removed after 12 hours and normal bathing resumed) (n = 415) or delayed post-operative bathing (dressing to be retained for at least 48 hours before removal and resumption of normal bathing) (n = 442). The only outcome of interest reported in this trial was surgical site infection (SSI). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who developed SSIs between the two groups (857 patients; RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48). The proportions of patients who developed SSIs were 8.5% in the early bathing group and 8.8% in the delayed bathing group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no conclusive evidence available from randomised trials regarding the benefits or harms of early versus delayed post-operative showering or bathing for the prevention of wound complications, as the confidence intervals around the point estimate are wide, and, therefore, a clinically significant increase or decrease in SSI by early post-operative bathing cannot be ruled out. We recommend running further randomised controlled trials to compare early versus delayed post-operative showering or bathing.

Surgical management of acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Acute cholecystitis occurs in approximately 1% of patients with known gallstones. It presents as a surgical emergency and usually requires hospitalisation for treatment. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Cholecystectomy is advocated for acute cholecystitis; however, the timing of cholecystectomy and the value of the additional treatments have been a matter of debate. This review examines the available evidence regarding the optimal surgical management of patients with acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, databases for English language publications. The MeSH headings 'cholecystitis', 'acute', 'gallbladder', 'inflammation', 'surgery', 'cholecystectomy', 'laparoscopic', 'robotic', 'telerobotic' and 'computer-assisted' were used.

RESULTS

Data from eight randomised controlled trails and three population-based analyses show that early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis performed on the index admission is safe and not associated with increased conversion rates or morbidity in comparison to conservative treatment followed by elective cholecystectomy. Delaying cholecystectomy increases readmissions for gallstone-related events, complications, hospital stay and mortality in the elderly. Early cholecystectomy is also more cost-effective. Randomised trials addressing antibiotic use in acute cholecystitis suggest that antibiotics should be stopped on the day of cholecystectomy. Insufficient trials have been performed to address the optimal analgesia regime post cholecystectomy. Similarly, a lack of trials on intraoperative cholangiography and management of common bile duct stones in patients with acute cholecystitis means that treatment of concomitant bile duct stones should be based on institutional expertise and resource availability. As regards acute cholecystitis in elderly and high-risk patients, case series and retrospective studies would suggest that cholecystectomy is more effective and of lower mortality than percutaneous cholecystostomy. There is not enough evidence to support the routine use of robotic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial evidence would favour a policy of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy following admission with acute cholecystitis. The optimal approach to support early cholecystectomy is suggested but requires evidence from further randomised trials.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy for assessing resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

Background

Surgical resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer, but many patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because tumours can be understaged by computerised tomography (CT). A recent Cochrane review found diagnostic laparoscopy can decrease unnecessary laparotomy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy prior to laparotomy versus direct laparotomy in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer with resectable disease based on CT scanning.

Method

Model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A decision tree model was constructed using probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

When laparotomy following diagnostic laparoscopy occurred in a subsequent admission, diagnostic laparoscopy incurred similar mean costs per patient to direct laparotomy (£7470 versus £7480); diagnostic laparoscopy costs (£995) were offset by avoiding unnecessary laparotomy costs. Diagnostic laparoscopy produced significantly more mean QALYs per patient than direct laparotomy (0.346 versus 0.337). Results were sensitive to the accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy and the probability that disease was unresectable. Diagnostic laparoscopy had 63 to 66% probability of being cost-effective at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000 to £30 000. When laparotomy was undertaken in the same admission as diagnostic laparoscopy the mean cost per patient of diagnostic laparoscopy increased to £8224.

Conclusions

Diagnostic laparoscopy prior to laparotomy in patients with CT-resectable cancer appears to be cost-effective in pancreatic cancer (but not in periampullary cancer), when laparotomy following diagnostic laparoscopy occurs in a subsequent admission.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0270-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.