No abstract

Background Although self‐expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short‐term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long‐term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods Through a national collaborative research project, long‐term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching. Results Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS‐related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three‐year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease‐free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3‐year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease‐free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively. Conclusion Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS‐related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision‐making for individual patients.

No abstract

Background:The aim of this review was to assess the value of immediate total-body computed tomography (CT) during the primary survey of injured patients compared with conventional radiographic imaging supplemented with selective CT.Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Reports were eligible if they contained original data comparing immediate total-body CT with conventional imaging supplemented with selective CT in injured patients. The main outcomes of interest were overall mortality and time in the emergency room (ER).Results: Four studies were included describing a total of 5470 patients; one study provided 4621 patients (84·5 per cent). All four studies were non-randomized cohort studies with retrospective data collection. Mortality was reported in three studies. Absolute mortality rates differed substantially between studies, but within studies mortality rates were comparable between immediate total-body CT and conventional imaging strategies (pooled odds ratio 0·91, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·79 to 1·05). Time in the ER was described in three studies, and in two was significantly shorter in patients who underwent immediate total-body CT: 70 versus 104 min (P = 0·025) and 47 versus 82 min (P < 0·001) respectively. Conclusion:This review showed differences in time in the ER in favour of immediate total-body CT during the primary trauma survey compared with conventional radiographic imaging supplemented with selective CT. There were no differences in mortality. The substantial reduction in time in the ER is a promising feature of immediate total-body CT but well designed and larger randomized studies are needed to see how this will translate into clinical outcomes.

BackgroundComputed tomography (CT) scanning has become essential in the early diagnostic phase of trauma care because of its high diagnostic accuracy. The introduction of multi-slice CT scanners and infrastructural improvements made total-body CT scanning technically feasible and its usage is currently becoming common practice in several trauma centers. However, literature provides limited evidence whether immediate total-body CT leads to better clinical outcome then conventional radiographic imaging supplemented with selective CT scanning in trauma patients. The aim of the REACT-2 trial is to determine the value of immediate total-body CT scanning in trauma patients.Methods/designThe REACT-2 trial is an international, multicenter randomized clinical trial. All participating trauma centers have a multi-slice CT scanner located in the trauma room or at the Emergency Department (ED). All adult, non-pregnant, severely injured trauma patients according to predefined criteria will be included. Patients in whom direct scanning will hamper necessary cardiopulmonary resuscitation or who require an immediate operation because of imminent death (both as judged by the trauma team leader) are excluded. Randomization will be computer assisted. The intervention group will receive a contrast-enhanced total-body CT scan (head to pelvis) during the primary survey. The control group will be evaluated according to local conventional trauma imaging protocols (based on ATLS guidelines) supplemented with selective CT scanning. Primary outcome will be in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes are differences in mortality and morbidity during the first year post trauma, several trauma work-up time intervals, radiation exposure, general health and quality of life at 6 and 12 months post trauma and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionThe REACT-2 trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that will provide evidence on the value of immediate total-body CT scanning during the primary survey of severely injured trauma patients. If immediate total-body CT scanning is found to be the best imaging strategy in severely injured trauma patients it could replace conventional imaging supplemented with CT in this specific group.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: (NCT01523626).