The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)
Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided.

METHODS: In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18-80 years with a BMI of 18-35 kg/m(2) and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery.

RESULTS: Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3-5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3-3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3-3) days for ONR versus 3 (3-4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION: This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Journal Article
525-535
Wong-Lun-Hing, E.M.
dd8acfe4-597f-489e-8578-58d7060bff4c
van Dam, R.M.
d1204c34-6a22-4ebf-bfd5-4efa4a639dcb
van Breukelen, G.J.P.
5aa36650-9576-4d53-b008-4a4b1900dff9
Tanis, P.J.
c1b36044-f2e7-4add-988c-39bdc5083f70
Ratti, F.
5f2db521-ddb1-474e-b39e-27284f990098
van Hillegersberg, R.
2aae1cdd-5d33-449b-b1ee-2de4727ed438
Slooter, G.D.
31576e5e-6933-49c2-86f8-d374e7372e28
de Wilt, J.H.W.
b71b0f9b-b1c1-475c-997d-a8c0effd93ea
Liem, M.S.L.
65b42624-afd0-4284-acee-0b53f45ac856
de Boer, M.T.
3080b43a-ff09-4b43-9c39-c36787400852
Klaase, J.M.
1293b147-40a5-47e9-8cf4-631156032cbe
Neumann, U.P.
7ac1d499-f9e5-45ab-bcf0-d0449819b262
Aldrighetti, L.A.
2ffc304b-7cf3-43f6-9db3-c7427d304c50
Dejong, C.H.C.
ec5b69ab-1817-4c43-b484-1341146e1836
Primrose, John
d85f3b28-24c6-475f-955b-ec457a3f9185
Abu Hilal, Mohammad
384e1c60-8519-4eed-8e92-91775aad4c47
ORANGE II Collaborative Group
Wong-Lun-Hing, E.M.
dd8acfe4-597f-489e-8578-58d7060bff4c
van Dam, R.M.
d1204c34-6a22-4ebf-bfd5-4efa4a639dcb
van Breukelen, G.J.P.
5aa36650-9576-4d53-b008-4a4b1900dff9
Tanis, P.J.
c1b36044-f2e7-4add-988c-39bdc5083f70
Ratti, F.
5f2db521-ddb1-474e-b39e-27284f990098
van Hillegersberg, R.
2aae1cdd-5d33-449b-b1ee-2de4727ed438
Slooter, G.D.
31576e5e-6933-49c2-86f8-d374e7372e28
de Wilt, J.H.W.
b71b0f9b-b1c1-475c-997d-a8c0effd93ea
Liem, M.S.L.
65b42624-afd0-4284-acee-0b53f45ac856
de Boer, M.T.
3080b43a-ff09-4b43-9c39-c36787400852
Klaase, J.M.
1293b147-40a5-47e9-8cf4-631156032cbe
Neumann, U.P.
7ac1d499-f9e5-45ab-bcf0-d0449819b262
Aldrighetti, L.A.
2ffc304b-7cf3-43f6-9db3-c7427d304c50
Dejong, C.H.C.
ec5b69ab-1817-4c43-b484-1341146e1836
Primrose, John
d85f3b28-24c6-475f-955b-ec457a3f9185
Abu Hilal, Mohammad
384e1c60-8519-4eed-8e92-91775aad4c47

Wong-Lun-Hing, E.M., van Dam, R.M., van Breukelen, G.J.P., Tanis, P.J., Ratti, F., van Hillegersberg, R., Slooter, G.D., de Wilt, J.H.W., Liem, M.S.L., de Boer, M.T., Klaase, J.M., Neumann, U.P., Aldrighetti, L.A. and Dejong, C.H.C. , ORANGE II Collaborative Group (2017) Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study). British Journal of Surgery, 104 (5), 525-535. (doi:10.1002/bjs.10438).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided.

METHODS: In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18-80 years with a BMI of 18-35 kg/m(2) and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery.

RESULTS: Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3-5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3-3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3-3) days for ONR versus 3 (3-4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION: This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Text
BJS10438_edited_AB_Wong_v4 - Accepted Manuscript
Download (210kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 28 October 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 31 January 2017
Published date: April 2017
Keywords: Journal Article
Organisations: Cancer Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 406974
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/406974
PURE UUID: 4e39e7bb-a100-4583-8dbf-c8b3e9c74635
ORCID for John Primrose: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-2069-7605

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 29 Mar 2017 01:05
Last modified: 16 Apr 2024 01:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: E.M. Wong-Lun-Hing
Author: R.M. van Dam
Author: G.J.P. van Breukelen
Author: P.J. Tanis
Author: F. Ratti
Author: R. van Hillegersberg
Author: G.D. Slooter
Author: J.H.W. de Wilt
Author: M.S.L. Liem
Author: M.T. de Boer
Author: J.M. Klaase
Author: U.P. Neumann
Author: L.A. Aldrighetti
Author: C.H.C. Dejong
Author: John Primrose ORCID iD
Author: Mohammad Abu Hilal
Corporate Author: ORANGE II Collaborative Group

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×