Literature DB >> 20953872

Problems of randomization to open or laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease.

Wieland Raue1, Corinna Langelotz, Vittorio Paolucci, Matthias Pross, Kaja Ludwig, Walter Asperger, Wolfgang Schwenk.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although complicated sigmoid diverticulitis is the most common reason for laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, the level of evidence for preference of the laparoscopic approach is low.
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis was conducted to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcome after both techniques. Data were assessed from randomized patients and from patients who refused randomization. Results of the here presented interim analysis describe the difficulties in randomization leading to abortion of recruitment.
RESULTS: 149 patients were enrolled in the randomized trial within 36 months until the interim analysis. A further 294 nonrandomized patients who preferred one of both surgical approaches were assessed. Several differences between these groups were apparent including simple epidemiological characteristics such as age (65 vs. 60 years, p < 0.001), gender (65% vs. 55% female, p = 0.05), BMI (27 vs. 26 kg/m(2), p = 0.01), and ASA class < III (72% vs. 87%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The majority of eligible patients refused a random allocation. A widespread presumption of the advantages of laparoscopic surgery was probably the main reason for refusal. Patients participating in randomization did not reflect the general population in recruiting hospitals. Future trials comparing minimal invasive procedures should be conducted before presumptions concerning the outcome are widespread in the general population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20953872     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-010-1074-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  34 in total

Review 1.  The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  J C Dumville; S Hahn; J N V Miles; D J Torgerson
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group.

Authors:  E Neugebauer; H Troidl; W Spangenberger; A Dietrich; R Lefering
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 3.  Understanding controlled trials. What is a patient preference trial?

Authors:  D J Torgerson; B Sibbald
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-31

4.  [Laparoscopic surgery of sigmoid diverticulitis].

Authors:  E Bärlehner; B Heukrodt; R Schwetling
Journal:  Zentralbl Chir       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 0.942

5.  Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  C R Brewin; C Bradley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-29

6.  Patients' preferences and randomised trials.

Authors:  W A Silverman; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-01-20       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Laparoscopic versus conventional colorectal resection: a prospective randomised study of postoperative ileus and early postoperative feeding.

Authors:  W Schwenk; B Böhm; O Haase; T Junghans; J M Müller
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.445

8.  Unexpected difficulties in randomizing patients in a surgical trial: a prospective study comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with open cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P W Plaisier; M Y Berger; R L van der Hul; H G Nijs; R den Toom; O T Terpstra; H A Bruining
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1994 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Factors related to enrollment in the breast cancer prevention trial at a comprehensive cancer center during the first year of recruitment.

Authors:  A Yeomans-Kinney; S W Vernon; R F Frankowski; D M Weber; J M Bitsura; V G Vogel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies.

Authors:  Alison M McDonald; Rosemary C Knight; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle; Adrian M Grant; Jonathan A Cook; Diana R Elbourne; David Francis; Jo Garcia; Ian Roberts; Claire Snowdon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2006-04-07       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  3 in total

1.  Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Authors:  Giana H Davidson; Sarah E Monsell; Heather Evans; Emily C Voldal; Erin Fannon; Sarah O Lawrence; Anusha Krishnadasan; David A Talan; Bonnie Bizzell; Patrick J Heagerty; Bryan A Comstock; Danielle C Lavallee; Cassandra Villegas; Robert Winchell; Callie M Thompson; Wesley H Self; Lillian S Kao; Shah-Jahan Dodwad; Amber K Sabbatini; David Droullard; David Machado-Aranda; Melinda Maggard Gibbons; Amy H Kaji; Daniel A DeUgarte; Lisa Ferrigno; Matthew Salzberg; Katherine A Mandell; Nicole Siparsky; Thea P Price; Anooradha Raman; Joshua Corsa; Jon Wisler; Patricia Ayoung-Chee; Jesse Victory; Alan Jones; Matthew Kutcher; Karen McGrane; Julie Holihan; Mike K Liang; Joseph Cuschieri; Jeffrey Johnson; Katherine Fischkoff; F Thurston Drake; Sabrina E Sanchez; Stephen R Odom; Larry G Kessler; David R Flum
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 16.681

2.  Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Karin A Wasmann; Pieta Wijsman; Susan van Dieren; Willem Bemelman; Christianne Buskens
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  The role of emergency laparoscopic surgery for complicated diverticular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hongwei Lin; Zhuonan Zhuang; Xin Huang; Yuanxin Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.