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