在接受直肠癌低位前切除术的患者中采用幽灵回肠造口术与传统环形回肠造口术:随机对照多中心试点试验的结果(DRKS00013997)。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Felix J Hüttner, Pascal Probst, André L Mihaljevic, Lukas D Sauer, Colette Doerr-Harim, Alexis Ulrich, Samira Stratmeyer, Rosa Klotz, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel
{"title":"在接受直肠癌低位前切除术的患者中采用幽灵回肠造口术与传统环形回肠造口术:随机对照多中心试点试验的结果(DRKS00013997)。","authors":"Felix J Hüttner, Pascal Probst, André L Mihaljevic, Lukas D Sauer, Colette Doerr-Harim, Alexis Ulrich, Samira Stratmeyer, Rosa Klotz, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03530-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research.</p><p><strong>Trial-registration: </strong>German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"409 1","pages":"341"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ghost-ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results of a randomised controlled multicentre pilot trial (DRKS00013997).\",\"authors\":\"Felix J Hüttner, Pascal Probst, André L Mihaljevic, Lukas D Sauer, Colette Doerr-Harim, Alexis Ulrich, Samira Stratmeyer, Rosa Klotz, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03530-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research.</p><p><strong>Trial-registration: </strong>German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"409 1\",\"pages\":\"341\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03530-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03530-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本次试验的目的是评估在接受直肠癌低位前切除术和全直肠系膜切除术(LAR/TME)的患者中,"幽灵回肠造口术 "是否是传统环状回肠造口术的安全替代方案:这项随机对照试验纳入了接受 LAR/TME 手术的患者,术中随机分配他们接受 ghost 回肠造口术或常规环状回肠造口术。随访时间为 6 个月,评估终点如下:综合并发症指数 (CCI)、术后发病率、幽闭回肠造口术的转变、6 个月时是否存在造口、Wexner 评分和生活质量(EORTC QLQ-C30 和 CR29)。根据意向治疗原则进行了探索性统计分析:2018年5月至2022年9月共招募30名患者,由于招募缓慢,试验提前结束。两组患者在任何时间点的平均 CCI 都相当(6 个月时:30.7 vs. 29.7,p = 0.889)。无死亡病例,也无需进行末端造口术。ghost 回肠造口术组和环状回肠造口术组的吻合口漏率相似(p > 0.99)。15 位患者中有 6 位(40.0%)将幽闭回肠造口术转化为传统的环状回肠造口术。术后功能和整体生活质量均无明显差异:结论:幽灵回肠造口术似乎是在直肠癌 LAR/TME 中选择性决定回肠造口的一种可行且安全的方案。然而,排除吻合口漏高风险患者,在患者选择方面的挑战限制了其广泛应用,需要在未来的研究中加以优化:德国临床试验注册中心 ( https://drks.de/ ):DRKS00013997;注册日期:2018年4月9日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ghost-ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results of a randomised controlled multicentre pilot trial (DRKS00013997).

Purpose: The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer.

Methods: This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted.

Results: Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences.

Conclusion: Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research.

Trial-registration: German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信