Methods: This multi-centre, international, single-arm, prospective observational study aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of a mid-term absorbable monofilament in comparison to braided sutures in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Monosyn suture was used to create the gastrointestinal anastomosis and the frequency of anastomotic leakage until day of discharge was chosen as the primary parameter. The outcome was compared to the results published for braided sutures in the literature. Secondary parameters were the time to perform the anastomosis, length of hospital stay, costs, and postoperative complications.
Results: The anastomosis leakage rate was 2.91%, indicating that Monosyn suture was not inferior to braided sutures used in gastrointestinal anastomosis. Of the reported anastomotic suture techniques, the single layer continuous method was the fastest and most economical technique in the present observational study.
Conclusion: Monosyn suture is safe and effective in gastrointestinal anastomosis and represents a good alternative to other sutures used for gastrointestinal anastomosis. With regard to safety, time and cost-efficiency, the single-layer continuous technique should be considered a preferred method. The transfer of results from clinical studies into daily practice with regard to surgical techniques for gastrointestinal anastomosis should be further evaluated in larger studies or in nationwide registries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between June 2011 and May 2012, 20 patients with upper urinary tract stones were included in this prospective randomized study. The patients were assigned into the LESS group or CL group in a one-on-one manner using a random table. The clinical parameters were evaluated in the immediate postoperative period, and the stone clearance rate was evaluated via non-contrast computer tomography at one month postoperatively.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient demographics or preoperative stone sizes between the two groups. The perioperative parameters, including operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain scores, length of hospital stay, and changes in renal function, were comparable. No transfusions or open conversions were required in either group. The incidence of residual stones was lower in the LESS group (1 case) than in the CL group (2 cases). However, this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: For large and impacted upper ureteral stones, the effectiveness and safety of LESS were equivalent to those of CL. Further randomized control trials with larger sample sizes are needed to strengthen the conclusions of this study. .
METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, multicentre randomised trial, patients aged 21-80 years with cT3 or cT4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were enrolled at 22 centres from South Korea, China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery and EIPL (EIPL group) or surgery alone (standard surgery group) via a web-based programme in random permuted blocks in varying block sizes of four and six, assuming equal allocation between treatment groups. Randomisation was stratified according to study site and the sequence was generated using a computer program and concealed until the interventions were assigned. After surgery in the EIPL group, peritoneal lavage was done with 1 L of warm (42°C) normal 0·9% saline followed by complete aspiration; this procedure was repeated ten times. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done assuming intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02140034.
FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2012, and Aug 3, 2018, 800 patients were randomly assigned to the EIPL group (n=398) or the standard surgery group (n=402). Two patients in the EIPL group and one in the standard surgery group withdrew from the trial immediately after randomisation and were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. At the third interim analysis on Aug 28, 2019, the predictive probability of overall survival being significantly higher in the EIPL group was less than 0·5%; therefore, the trial was terminated on the basis of futility. With a median follow-up of 2·4 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), the two groups were similar in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·78-1·52; p=0·62). 3-year overall survival was 77·0% (95% CI 71·4-81·6) for the EIPL group and 76·7% (71·0-81·5) for the standard surgery group. 60 adverse events were reported in the EIPL group and 41 were reported in the standard surgery group. The most common adverse events included anastomotic leak (ten [3%] of 346 patients in the EIPL group vs six [2%] of 362 patients in the standard surgery group), bleeding (six [2%] vs six [2%]), intra-abdominal abscess (four [1%] vs five [1%]), superficial wound infection (seven [2%] vs one [<1%]), and abnormal liver function (six [2%] vs one [<1%]). Ten of the reported adverse events (eight in the EIPL group and two in the standard surgery group) resulted in death.
INTERPRETATION: EIPL and surgery did not have a survival benefit compared with surgery alone and is not recommended for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
FUNDING: National Medical Research Council, Singapore.