Dataset Information

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection.

Methods and analysis

The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes.

Ethics and dissemination

The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Harji D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5879497 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

Harji Deena D Marshall Helen H Gordon Katie K Crow Hannah H Hiley Victoria V Burke Dermot D Griffiths Ben B Moriarty Catherine C Twiddy Maureen M O'Dwyer John L JL Verjee Azmina A Brown Julia J Sagar Peter P

BMJ open 20180222 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficul ...[more]

PMID: 29472259

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up.MethodsBetween March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842).ResultsIn total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI -10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI -11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4).ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 10-year follow-up.

Project description:Background Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cause of cancer worldwide. In recent years, the frequency to use minimally invasive surgical methods for esophagectomy has been increased, but its real advantages over conventional surgery is still remains. The aim of this study is to compare patients who underwent open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy with those who underwent minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy (MIO) to ascertain the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of the MIO. Methods We did a multicentre prospective, open and parallel, randomised controlled trial in six study centres between April 1st, 2014, and April 30th, 2018. Patients aged 18–75 years with resectable middle and upper esophageal cancer were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy (Group A) or MIO (Group B). The perioperative outcomes were to compare operative time, intraoperative blood loss, total expenses in hospital, hospital stay, the number and location of lymph nodes harvested and respiratory complications within 30 days. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02355249. Results We randomly assigned 339 patients to the Group A and 156 to the Group B. No differences emerged in terms of age (year) [(61.52±8.52) vs. (60.25±6.28), P=0.67], the median lengths of hospital stay (day) [(16.28±8.02) vs. (17.15±11.74), P=0.08]. Group A has less intraoperative blood loss (mL) [(241.1±165.8) vs. (274.0±169.8), P<0.05] and total expenses in hospital (?) [(92,076±27,889) vs. (107,669±32,655), P<0.05], shorter operative time (min) [(267±92.2) vs. (364.3±99.43), P<0.05]. While Group B has palpable advantage in the number [(18.30±11.44) vs. (23.08±12.45), P<0.05] and location [(4.30±2.16) vs. (5.44±2.37), P<0.05] of lymph nodes harvested. The proportion of respiratory complications within 30 days was no statistical difference in the Group B [21/156 (13.5%)] compared to the Group A [45/339 (13.3%)] (Chi-square sig =0.934, P>0.05). Meanwhile, the study makes clear that tumour size has no correlation to operative time (Spearman r =?0.014, P>0.05) and intraoperative blood loss (Spearman r =0.078, P>0.05). Conclusions Compared to open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy, MIO has prominent representation in lymph nodes harvested which is fatal to estimate prognosis and plan sequential treatment plan, although, MIO has some disadvantage such as longer operative time, more intraoperative blood loss and total expenses in hospital which is conflicting to previous observational studies conclusion. There is no statistical difference in respiratory complications within 30 days between the two surgical approaches. Next step, survival rate after 2 years will be analyzed and published after the follow-up work is finished.

Project description:IntroductionPostoperative ileus (POI) is an inevitable complication of almost all abdominal surgeries, which results in prolonged hospitalisation and increased healthcare costs. Various treatment strategies have been developed for POI but with limited success. Electroacupuncture (EA) might be a potential therapy for POI. However, evidence from rigorous trials that evaluated the effectiveness of EA for POI is limited. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine whether EA can safely reduce the time to the first defecation after laparoscopic surgery in patients with POI.Methods and analysisThis multicentre randomised sham-controlled trial will be conducted in four hospitals in China. A total of 248 eligible participants with colorectal cancer who will undergo laparoscopic surgery will be randomly allocated to an EA group and a sham EA group in a 1:1 ratio. Treatment will be performed starting on postoperative day 1 and continued for four consecutive days, once per day. If the participant is discharged within 4 days after surgery, the treatment will cease on the day of discharge. The primary outcome will be the time to first defecation. The secondary outcome measures will include time to first flatus, tolerability of semiliquid and solid food, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, postoperative pain, postoperative analgesic, time to first ambulation, blinding assessment, credibility and expectancy and readmission rate.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (number 2020BZHYLL0116) and the institutional review board of each hospital. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. This study protocol (V.3.0, 6 March 2020) involves human participants and was approved by the ethics committees of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (number 2020BZHYLL0116), Beijing Friendship Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (number 2020-P2-069-01), Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (number 2020-3-11-2), National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College (number 20/163-2359), and the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University (number QYFYKYLL711311920). The participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000038444.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis are frequently treated with nerve root decompression, in addition to pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion. Minimally invasive approaches are gaining attention in recent years, although there is no clear evidence supporting the proclamation of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) being better than open surgery. We present the design of the MISOS (Minimal Invasive Surgery versus Open Surgery) trial on the effectiveness of MISS versus open surgery in patients with degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.Methods and analysisAll patients (age 18-75 years) with neurogenic claudication or radicular leg pain based on low-grade degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis with persistent complaints for at least 3 months are eligible. Patients will be randomised into mini-open decompression with bilateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (MISS), or conventional surgery with decompression and instrumented fusion with pedicle screws and bilateral interbody fusion (open). The primary outcome measure is Visual Analogue Scale of self-reported low back pain. Secondary outcome measures include improvement of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, patients' perceived recovery, quality of life, resumption of work, complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay, incidence of reoperations and documentation of fusion. This study is designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Based on a 20?mm difference of low back pain score at 6 weeks (power of 90%, assuming 8% loss to follow-up), a total of 184 patients will be needed. All analyses will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board Southwest Holland in August 2014 (registration number NL 49044.098.14) and subsequently approved by the board of all participating hospitals. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNTR 4532, pre-results.

Project description:AimsThe role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).MethodsA multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.Results88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p?=?0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p?=?0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.ConclusionFeasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Dataset Information

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets