Cargando…

Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]

BACKGROUND: There are two ways to open the abdominal cavity in elective general surgery: vertically or transversely. Various clinical studies and a meta-analysis have postulated that the transverse approach is superior to other approaches as regards complications. However, in a recent survey it was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reidel, Margot A, Knaebel, Hanns-Peter, Seiler, Christoph M, Knauer, Christine, Motsch, Johann, Victor, Norbert, Büchler, Markus W
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC293467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14614782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-9
_version_ 1782121081287475200
author Reidel, Margot A
Knaebel, Hanns-Peter
Seiler, Christoph M
Knauer, Christine
Motsch, Johann
Victor, Norbert
Büchler, Markus W
author_facet Reidel, Margot A
Knaebel, Hanns-Peter
Seiler, Christoph M
Knauer, Christine
Motsch, Johann
Victor, Norbert
Büchler, Markus W
author_sort Reidel, Margot A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are two ways to open the abdominal cavity in elective general surgery: vertically or transversely. Various clinical studies and a meta-analysis have postulated that the transverse approach is superior to other approaches as regards complications. However, in a recent survey it was shown that 90 % of all abdominal incisions in visceral surgery are still vertical incisions. This discrepancy between existing recommendations of clinical trials and clinical practice could be explained by the lack of acceptance of these results due to a number of deficits in the study design and analysis, subsequent low internal validity, and therefore limited external generalisability. The objective of this study is to address the issue from the patient's perspective. METHODS: This is an intraoperatively randomized controlled observer and patient-blinded two-group parallel equivalence trial. The study setting is the Department of General-, Visceral-, Trauma Surgery and Outpatient Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, Medical School. A total of 172 patients of both genders, aged over 18 years who are scheduled for an elective abdominal operation and are eligible for either a transverse or vertical incision. To show equivalence of the two approaches or the superiority of one of them from the perspective of the patient, a primary endpoint is defined: the pain experienced by the patient (VAS 0–100) on day two after surgery and the amount of analgesic required (piritramide [mg/h]). A confidence interval approach will be used for analysis. A global α-Level of 0.05 and a power of 0.8 is guaranteed, resulting in a size of 86 patients for each group. Secondary endpoints are: time interval to open and close the abdomen, early-onset complications (frequency of burst abdomen, postoperative pulmonary complications, and wound infection) and late complications (frequency of incisional hernias). Different outcome variables will be ranked by patients and surgeons to assess the relevance of possible endpoints from the patients' and surgeons' perspective. CONCLUSION: This is a randomized controlled observer and patient-blinded two-group parallel trial to answer the question if the transverse abdominal incision is equivalent to the vertical one due to the described endpoints.
format Text
id pubmed-293467
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-2934672003-12-16 Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227] Reidel, Margot A Knaebel, Hanns-Peter Seiler, Christoph M Knauer, Christine Motsch, Johann Victor, Norbert Büchler, Markus W BMC Surg Study Protocol BACKGROUND: There are two ways to open the abdominal cavity in elective general surgery: vertically or transversely. Various clinical studies and a meta-analysis have postulated that the transverse approach is superior to other approaches as regards complications. However, in a recent survey it was shown that 90 % of all abdominal incisions in visceral surgery are still vertical incisions. This discrepancy between existing recommendations of clinical trials and clinical practice could be explained by the lack of acceptance of these results due to a number of deficits in the study design and analysis, subsequent low internal validity, and therefore limited external generalisability. The objective of this study is to address the issue from the patient's perspective. METHODS: This is an intraoperatively randomized controlled observer and patient-blinded two-group parallel equivalence trial. The study setting is the Department of General-, Visceral-, Trauma Surgery and Outpatient Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, Medical School. A total of 172 patients of both genders, aged over 18 years who are scheduled for an elective abdominal operation and are eligible for either a transverse or vertical incision. To show equivalence of the two approaches or the superiority of one of them from the perspective of the patient, a primary endpoint is defined: the pain experienced by the patient (VAS 0–100) on day two after surgery and the amount of analgesic required (piritramide [mg/h]). A confidence interval approach will be used for analysis. A global α-Level of 0.05 and a power of 0.8 is guaranteed, resulting in a size of 86 patients for each group. Secondary endpoints are: time interval to open and close the abdomen, early-onset complications (frequency of burst abdomen, postoperative pulmonary complications, and wound infection) and late complications (frequency of incisional hernias). Different outcome variables will be ranked by patients and surgeons to assess the relevance of possible endpoints from the patients' and surgeons' perspective. CONCLUSION: This is a randomized controlled observer and patient-blinded two-group parallel trial to answer the question if the transverse abdominal incision is equivalent to the vertical one due to the described endpoints. BioMed Central 2003-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC293467/ /pubmed/14614782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-9 Text en Copyright © 2003 Reidel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Reidel, Margot A
Knaebel, Hanns-Peter
Seiler, Christoph M
Knauer, Christine
Motsch, Johann
Victor, Norbert
Büchler, Markus W
Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]
title Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]
title_full Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]
title_fullStr Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]
title_full_unstemmed Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]
title_short Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: Design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN60734227]
title_sort postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [isrctn60734227]
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC293467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14614782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-9
work_keys_str_mv AT reidelmargota postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227
AT knaebelhannspeter postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227
AT seilerchristophm postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227
AT knauerchristine postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227
AT motschjohann postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227
AT victornorbert postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227
AT buchlermarkusw postsurgicalpainoutcomeofverticalandtransverseabdominalincisiondesignofarandomizedcontrolledequivalencetrialisrctn60734227