http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/6258/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/39524/ 2012-08-01T00:00:00Z Background: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in elective surgery in combination with an inflammatory component such as diverticulitis is yet unclear. This study evaluates the effects of MBP on anastomotic leakage and other septic complications in 190 patients who underwent elective surgery for colonic diverticulitis. Methods: A subgroup analysis was performed in a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP in elective colorectal surgery. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in patients operated on for diverticulitis, and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality. Results: Out of a total of 1,354 patients, 190 underwent elective colorectal surgery (resection with primary anastomosis) for (recurrent or stenotic) diverticulitis. One hundred and three patients underwent MBP prior to surgery and 87 did not. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7.8 % of patients treated with MBP and in 5.7 % of patients not treated with MBP (p = 0.79). There were no significant differences between the groups in septic complications and mortality. Conclusion: Mechanical bowel preparation has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, or other septic complications, and may be safely omitted in case of elective colorectal surgery for diverticulitis. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33312/ 2011-09-01T00:00:00Z Background: A previous multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) does not guard against anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. The aim of this complementary study was to evaluate the effects of MBP on morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. Methods: A subgroup analysis was performed of a randomized trial comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage and septic complications with and without MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Results: Elective colorectal surgery was performed in 1,433 patients with primary anastomoses, of whom 63 patients developed anastomotic leakage. Twenty-eight patients (44%) received MBP and 35 patients (56%) did not. Mortality rate, initial need for surgical reintervention, and extent of bowel contamination did not differ between groups (29% vs 40%; P =.497, P =.667, and P =.998, respectively). Conclusions: No benefit of MBP was found regarding morbidity and mortality after anastomotic leakage in elective colorectal surgery. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27361/ 2010-09-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27461/ 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear. METHODS: This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality. RESULTS: Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate. Copyright http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32361/ 2008-07-01T00:00:00Z The heterogeneity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered one of the most significant barriers to finding effective therapeutic interventions. In October, 2007, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with support from the Brain Injury Association of America, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, convened a workshop to outline the steps needed to develop a reliable, efficient and valid classification system for TBI that could be used to link specific patterns of brain and neurovascular injury with appropriate therapeutic interventions. Currently, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the primary selection criterion for inclusion in most TBI clinical trials. While the GCS is extremely useful in the clinical management and prognosis of TBI, it does not provide specific information about the pathophysiologic mechanisms which are responsible for neurological deficits and targeted by interventions. On the premise that brain injuries with similar pathoanatomic features are likely to share common pathophysiologic mechanisms, participants proposed that a new, multidimensional classification system should be developed for TBI clinical trials. It was agreed that preclinical models were vital in establishing pathophysiologic mechanisms relevant to specific pathoanatomic types of TBI and verifying that a given therapeutic approach improves outcome in these targeted TBI types. In a clinical trial, patients with the targeted pathoanatomic injury type would be selected using an initial diagnostic entry criterion, including their severity of injury. Coexisting brain injury types would be identified and multivariate prognostic modeling used for refinement of inclusion/exclusion criteria and patient stratification. Outcome assessment would utilize endpoints relevant to the targeted injury type. Advantages and disadvantages of currently available diagnostic, monitoring, and assessment tools were discussed. Recommendations were made for enhancing the utility of available or emerging tools in order to facilitate implementation of a pathoanatomic classification approach for clinical trials. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/35682/ 2007-12-22T00:00:00Z Background: Mechanical bowel preparation is a common practice before elective colorectal surgery. We aimed to compare the rate of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resections and primary anastomoses between patients who did or did not have mechanical bowel preparation. Methods: We did a multicentre randomised non-inferiority study at 13 hospitals. We randomly assigned 1431 patients who were going to have elective colorectal surgery to either receive mechanical bowel preparation or not. Patients who did not have mechanical bowel preparation had a normal meal on the day before the operation. Those who did were given a fluid diet, and mechanical bowel preparation with either polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage, and the study was designed to test the hypothesis that patients who are given mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery do not have a lower risk of anastomotic leakage than those who are not. The median follow-up was 24 days (IQR 17-34). We analysed patients who were treated as per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00288496. Findings: 77 patients were excluded: 46 who did not have a bowel resection; 21 because of missing outcome data; and 10 who withdrew, cancelled, or were excluded for other reasons. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ between both groups: 32/670 (4·8%) patients who had mechanical bowel preparation and 37/684 (5·4%) in those who did not (difference 0·6%, 95% CI -1·7% to 2·9%, p=0·69). Patients who had mechanical bowel preparation had fewer abscesses after anastomotic leakage than those who did not (2/670 [0·3%] vs 17/684 [2·5%], p=0·001). Other septic complications, fascia dehiscence, and mortality did not differ between groups. Interpretation: We advise that mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can safely be abandoned. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10131/ 2003-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: Immediate reconstruction of the breast can be performed in selected cases after mastectomy for breast cancer or after prophylactic mastectomy in patients with a high risk of developing breast cancer. Despite the frequency with which these procedures are performed, data from large series of subpectoral implantation of silicone prostheses in combination with a skin-saving approach are lacking. METHODS: In this retrospective study, data on complications and late surgical interventions in 356 patients who underwent 510 mastectomies with an inverted drip incision and immediate reconstruction (MIDIIR) were analyzed to determine potential prognostic factors of early complications. RESULTS: In 82% of the MIDIIRs, the postoperative course was uneventful. In 18%, the complications were infection (32 cases), necrosis of the skin flap (29 cases), bleeding (31 cases), and protrusion of the prosthesis (20 cases), resulting in surgery in 9, 12, 15, and 20 cases, respectively. At the end of the follow-up period, 30 (6%) prostheses were definitively removed. Age, size of the prostheses, radiotherapy, previous lumpectomy, and indication for mastectomy were not significant factors for the prognosis of early complications. CONCLUSIONS: With the right technique and indications, MIDIIR is a very safe procedure and should be one of the surgical treatments that can be offered in the overall management of patients with, or at high risk for, breast cancer.