Browsing by Author "Senninger, Norbert"

Recurrent Crohn's disease activity at the site of anastomosis after ileocecal resection is of great surgical importance. This prospective randomized multi-center trial with an estimated case number of 224 patients was initially planned to investigate whether stapled side-to-side anastomosis, compared to hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis, results in a decreased recurrence of Crohn's disease following ileocolic resection (primary endpoint). The secondary endpoint was to focus on the early postoperative results comparing both surgical methods. The study was terminated early due to insufficient patient recruitment and because another large study investigated the same question, while our trial was ongoing. Patients with stenosing ileitis terminalis in Crohn's disease who underwent an ileocolic resection were randomized to side-to-side or end-to-end anastomosis. Due to its early discontinuation, our study only investigated the secondary endpoints, the early postoperative results (complications: bleeding, wound infection, anastomotic leakage, first postoperative stool, duration of hospital stay). From February 2006 until June 2010, 67 patients were enrolled in nine participating centers. The two treatment groups were comparable to their demographic and pre-operative data. BMI and Crohn's Disease Activity Index were 22.2 (+/- 4.47) and 200.5 (+/- 73.66), respectively, in the side-to-side group compared with 23.3 (+/- 4.99) and 219.6 (+/- 89.03) in the end-to-end group. The duration of surgery was 126.7 (+/- 42.8) min in the side-to-side anastomosis group and 137.4 (+/- 51.9) min in the end-to-end anastomosis group. Two patients in the end-to-end anastomosis group developed an anastomotic leakage (6.5%). Impaired wound healing was found in 13.9% of the side-to-side anastomosis group, while 6.5% of the end-to-end anastomosis group developed this complication. The duration of hospital stay was comparable in both groups with 9.9 (+/- 3.93) and 10.4 (+/- 3.26) days, respectively. Because of the early discontinuation of the study, it is not possible to provide a statement about the perianastomotic recurrence rates regarding the primary endpoint. With regard to the early postoperative outcome, we observed no difference between the two types of anastomosis.

Purpose Correct diagnosis, surgical treatment, and perioperative management of patients with esophageal carcinoma remain crucial for prognosis within multimodal treatment procedures. This study aims to achieve a consensus regarding current management strategies in esophageal cancer by questioning a panel of experts from the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study (GAST) group, comprised of 9 centers specialized in esophageal surgery, with a combined total of > 220 esophagectomies per year. Materials and methods The Delphi method, a systematic and interactive, evidence-based approach, was used to obtain consensus statements from the GAST group regarding ambiguities and disparities in diagnosis, patient selection, surgical technique, and perioperative management of patients with esophageal carcinoma. After four rounds of surveys, agreement was measured by Likert scales and defined as full (100% agreement), near (a parts per thousand yen66.6% agreement), or no consensus (< 66.6% agreement). Results Full or near consensus was obtained for essential aspects of esophageal cancer staging, proper surgical technique, perioperative management and indication for primary surgery, and neoadjuvant treatment or palliative treatment. No consensus was achieved regarding acceptability of minimally invasive technique and postoperative nutrition after esophagectomy. Conclusion The GAST consensus statement represents a position paper for treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma which both contributes to the development of clinical treatment guidelines and outlines topics in need of further clinical studies.

It remains unclear which liver graft reperfusion technique leads to the best outcome following transplantation. An online survey was sent to all transplant centres (n=37) within Eurotransplant (ET) to collect information on their technique used for reperfusion of liver grafts. Furthermore, a systematic review of all literature was performed and a meta-analysis was conducted based on patients' mortality, number of retransplantations and incidence of biliary complications, depending on the technique used. Of the 28 evaluated centres, 11 (39%) reported performing simultaneous reperfusion (SIMR), 13 (46%) perform initial portal vein reperfusion (IPR), 1 (4%) performs an initial hepatic artery reperfusion (IAR) and 3 (11%) perform retrograde reperfusion (RETR). In 21 centres (75%), one reperfusion technique is used as a standard, but in only one centre is this decision based on available literature. Twenty centres (71%) said they would agree to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCT) if required. For meta-analysis, IAR vs. IPR, SIMR vs. IPR and RETR vs. IPR were compared. There was no difference between any of the techniques compared. There is no consensus on a preferable reperfusion technique. Available evidence does not help in the decision-making process. There is thus an urgent need for multicentric RCTs.