Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting.LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs.The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting.Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.

SUBMITTER: de Rooij T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5385082 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

de Rooij Thijs T van Hilst Jony J Vogel Jantien A JA van Santvoort Hjalmar C HC de Boer Marieke T MT Boerma Djamila D van den Boezem Peter B PB Bonsing Bert A BA Bosscha Koop K Coene Peter-Paul PP Daams Freek F van Dam Ronald M RM Dijkgraaf Marcel G MG van Eijck Casper H CH Festen Sebastiaan S Gerhards Michael F MF Groot Koerkamp Bas B Hagendoorn Jeroen J van der Harst Erwin E de Hingh Ignace H IH Dejong Cees H CH Kazemier Geert G Klaase Joost J de Kleine Ruben H RH van Laarhoven Cornelis J CJ Lips Daan J DJ Luyer Misha D MD Molenaar I Quintus IQ Nieuwenhuijs Vincent B VB Patijn Gijs A GA Roos Daphne D Scheepers Joris J JJ van der Schelling George P GP Steenvoorde Pascal P Swijnenburg Rutger-Jan RJ Wijsman Jan H JH Abu Hilal Moh'd M Busch Olivier R OR Besselink Marc G MG

Trials 20170408 1

<h4>Background</h4>Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for mult ...[more]

PMID: 28388963

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.Methods/designDIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.DiscussionThe DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Project description:Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to provide important advantages in comparison with open procedures in the treatment of several malignant diseases, such as less perioperative blood loss and faster patient recovery. It also maintains similar results with regard to tumor resection margins and oncological long-term survival. In gastric cancer the role of laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. Current recommended treatment for gastric cancer consists of radical resection of the stomach, with a free margin of 5 to 6 cm from the tumor, combined with a lymphadenectomy. The extent of the lymphadenectomy is considered a marker for radicality of surgery and quality of care. Therefore, it is imperative that a novel surgical technique, such as minimally invasive total gastrectomy, should be non-inferior with regard to radicality of surgery and lymph node yield.The Surgical Techniques, Open versus Minimally invasive gastrectomy After CHemotherapy (STOMACH) study is a randomized, clinical multicenter trial. All adult patients with primary carcinoma of the stomach, in which the tumor is considered surgically resectable (T1-3, N0-1, M0) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, are eligible for inclusion and randomization. The primary endpoint is quality of oncological resection, measured by radicality of surgery and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The pathologist is blinded towards patient allocation. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) regarding quality of life, postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness. Based on a non-inferiority model for lymph node yield, with an average lymph node yield of 20, a non-inferiority margin of -4 and a 90% power to detect non-inferiority, a total of 168 patients are to be included.The STOMACH trial is a prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized study to define the optimal surgical strategy in patients with proximal or central gastric cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: the conventional 'open' approach or minimally invasive total gastrectomy.This trial was registered on 28 April 2014 at Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT02130726 .

Project description:BackgroundThe placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains has been common practice in abdominal operations including pancreatic surgery. The PANDRA trial showed that the omission of drains following pancreatic head resection was non-inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reinterventions and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. The aim of the present PANDRA II trial is to evaluate the clinical outcome with versus without prophylactic drain placement after distal pancreatectomy.MethodsThe PANDRA II trial is a mono-center, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial with two parallel study groups. In the control group at least one passive intra-abdominal drain is placed at the pancreatic resection margin. In the experimental group no drains are placed. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) measuring all postoperative complications within 90 days. Secondary endpoints are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula, chyle leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, reinterventions and reoperations, surgical site infection, and abdominal fascia dehiscence. Moreover, length of hospital stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the rate of readmission after discharge from hospital (up to day 90 after surgery) are assessed. We will need to analyze 252 patients to test the hypothesis that no drainage is non-inferior to drain placement in terms of the CCI (δ 7.5 points) in a one-sided t test with a one-sided level of significance of 2.5% and a power of 80%.DiscussionThe results of the PANDRA II trial will help to evaluate the effect of an omission of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage on the rate of complications after open or minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00013763 . Registered on 6 March 2018.

Project description:BackgroundAnatomically, the esophagus is located within the mediastinum, and thus it potentially a transcervical approach for esophagectomy, which avoids thoracic manipulation, could be an alternative to transthoracic esophagectomy for the surgical resection of esophageal cancer. A modified transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparo-gastroscopic esophagectomy (LGE), was recently introduced using an integrated gastroscope to mobilize the esophagus. As such, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is necessary to validate its value compared to transthoracic MIE, which carries a high risk of morbidity due to thoracic manipulation.MethodsThis prospective study plans to enroll patients with resectable esophageal cancer with a pathological diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma patients over a 2-year period. Patients will be randomly assigned to one of 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio: patients in Group A will radical LGE and patients in Group B will receive radical laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy (LTE). Perioperative and long-term outcomes of all patients will be collected and analyzed. The primary end point will be perioperative morbidity, and the secondary end points will include 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and quality of life (QOL) score. Other data that will be collected and compared between the groups include the number of harvested lymph nodes, surgical Apgar score, and duration of operation.DiscussionTransthoracic MIE is the most widely accepted approach for treating esophageal cancer. In this RCT, transthoracic MIE and transcervical LGE will be compared with respect to oncological and surgical outcomes (oncological none-inferiority and surgical superiority).Trial registrationThis study is registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200055312) with the name of 'Transcervical versus Transthoracic Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized and Controlled Trial' on January 6, 2022. Details can be found on http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=133224.

Project description:BackgroundThe only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT).Methods/designThis superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up.DiscussionMIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773 . Registered on 18 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundThoracolumbar fractures are most frequent along the spine, and surgical treatment is indicated for unstable fractures. Percutaneous minimally invasive surgery was introduced to reduce the pain associated with the open posterior approach and reduce the morbidity of the procedure by avoiding damage and dissection of the paravertebral muscles. The goal of this study is to compare the surgical treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar spine treated by the conventional open approach and the percutaneous minimally invasive approach using similar types of pedicle spine fixation systems.Methods/designsThis study is designed as a multi-center, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18-65 years who are scheduled to undergo surgical posterior fixation. Treatment by the conventional open approach or percutaneous minimally invasive approach will be randomly assigned. The primary outcome measure is postoperative pain, which will be measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS). The secondary outcome parameters are intraoperative bleeding, postoperative drainage, surgery time, length of hospital stay, SF-36, EQ-5D-5 l, HADS, pain medication, deambulation after surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, vertebral segment kyphosis, fracture vertebral body height, compression of the vertebral canal, accuracy of the pedicle screws, and breakage or release of the implants. Patient will be followed up for 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively and evaluated according to the outcomes using clinical and radiological examinations, plain radiographs and computed tomografy (CT).DiscussionSurgical treatment of thoracolumbar fractures by the open or percutaneous minimally invasive approach will be compared in a multicenter randomized study using similar types of fixation systems, and the results will be evaluated according to clinical and radiological parameters at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months of follow-up.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov approval number: 1.933.631, code: NCT03316703 in may 2017.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets