PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Effect of delayed CNI-based immunosuppression with Advagraf® on liver function after MELD-based liver transplantation [IMUTECT] 
BMC Surgery  2014;14:64.
Background
MELD-based allocation for liver transplantation follows the “sickest-patient-first” strategy. The latter patients present with both, decreased immune competence and poor kidney function which is further impaired by immunosuppressants.
Methods/Design
In this prospective observational study, 50 patients with de novo low-dose standard Advagraf®-based immunosuppression consisting of Advagraf®, Mycophenolat-mofetil and Corticosteroids after liver transplantation will be evaluated. Advagraf® trough levels of 7-10 μg/l will be reached at the end of the first postoperative week. Immunostatus, infectious complications, graft and kidney function are compared between patients with a pretransplant calculated MELD-score of ≤20 and >20. Each group comprises of 25 consecutive patients. Prior to liver transplantation and on the postoperative days 1, 3 and 7, the patients’ graft function (LiMAx test) will be evaluated. On the postoperative days 3, 5 and 7 the patients’ immune status will be evaluated by the measurement of their monocytic HLA-DR status.
Infectious complications (CMV-reactivation, wound infection, urinary tract infection, and pneumonia), graft- and kidney function will be analysed on day 0, within the first week, and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after liver transplantation.
Discussion
This study was designed to assess the effect of a standard low-dose Calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression regime with Advagraf® on the rate of infectious complications, graft and renal function after liver transplantation.
Trial registration
The trial is registered at “Clinical Trials” (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01781195.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-14-64
PMCID: PMC4160448  PMID: 25178675
Advagraf®; Prospective observational study; MELD-score; Liver function; LiMAx test; Infection rate; HLA-DR status; Immunostatus
2.  To whom do the results of the multicenter, randomized, controlled INSECT trial (ISRCTN 24023541) apply? - assessment of external validity 
BMC Surgery  2012;12:2.
A response to Seiler et al: Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 2009, 249(4):576-582.
Background
Existing evidence suggests that the transfer of results of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice may be limited. Potential reasons can be attributed to aspects of external validity. The aim of this study is to investigate issues related to the external validity of the INSECT trial.
Methods
All participating surgical departments were categorized and the clinical and baseline characteristics of randomized patients were evaluated. In addition, demographic and clinical data of all screened and randomized patients at the Departments of Surgery in Heidelberg and Erlangen were analyzed.
Results
Twenty-five centers enrolled a total of 625 patients. These centers included eight primary, 11 secondary, and six tertiary care centers. The tertiary care centers enrolled the most patients (n = 237, 38%) followed by the primary care centers (n = 199, 32%) and the secondary care centers (n = 189 patients; 30%). The mean number and baseline data of randomized patients did not differ between the three types of care centers (p = 0.09). Overall, the treatment according to protocol was at least 92%. At the Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, 307 patients were screened and 60 out of 130 eligible patients were randomized. There were no differences in demographic and clinical baseline data between included and non-included patients. In Erlangen, 351 patients were screened and 57 out of 106 eligible patients randomized.
Conclusions
Results of the INSECT trial are applicable to a broad spectrum of patients treated at different hospital levels.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-12-2
PMCID: PMC3328288  PMID: 22316122
3.  Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery – Is there any consensus? 
BMC Surgery  2009;9:8.
Background
Development of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery remains a major cause of post-operative morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of surgeons in terms of access to and closure of the abdominal cavity in elective open surgery.
Methods
Twelve surgical departments of the INSECT-Trial group documented the following variables for 50 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal surgery: fascial closure techniques, applied suture materials, application of subcutaneous sutures, subcutaneous drains, methods for skin closure. Descriptive analysis was performed and consensus of treatment variables was categorized into four levels: Strong consensus >95%, consensus 75–95%, overall agreement 50–75%, no consensus <50%.
Results
157 out of 599 patients were eligible for analysis (85 (54%) midline, 54 (35%) transverse incisions). After midline incisions the fascia was closed continuously in 55 patients (65%), using slowly absorbable (n = 47, 55%), braided (n = 32, 38%) sutures with a strength of 1 (n = 48, 57%). In the transverse setting the fascia was closed continuously in 39 patients (72%) with slowly absorbable (n = 22, 41%) braided sutures (n = 27, 50%) with a strength of 1 (n = 30, 56%).
Conclusion
In the present evaluation midline incision was the most frequently applied access in elective open abdominal surgery. None of the treatments for abdominal wall closure (except skin closure in the midline group) is performed on a consensus level.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-9-8
PMCID: PMC2687428  PMID: 19442311
4.  Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures – Design of a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate abdominal closure techniques INSECT-Trial [ISRCTN24023541] 
BMC Surgery  2005;5:3.
Background
The closure of the abdomen after median laparotomy is still a matter of debate among surgeons. Further well designed and performed randomised controlled trials determining the optimal method of abdominal fascial closure are needed.
Design
This is a three armed, multi-centre, intra-operatively randomised, controlled, patient blinded trial. Over 20 surgical departments will enrol 600 patients who are planned for an elective primary abdominal operation. The objective of this study is to compare the frequency of abdominal incisional hernias between two continuous suture techniques with different, slowly absorbable monofilament materials and an interrupted suture using an absorbable braided suture material at one year postoperatively.
Conclusion
This trial will answer the question whether the continuous abdominal wall closure with a slowly absorbable material with longitudinal elasticity is superior to the continuous suture with a material lacking elasticity and to interrupted sutures with braided thread.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-5-3
PMCID: PMC554977  PMID: 15755324

Results 1-4 (4)