This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Laparoscopic "fast-track" sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis disease in Germany. Results of a prospective quality assurance program.



Key Questions Addressed
4 KEY QUESTION 4 KQ 4: What are the effects, comparative effects, and harms of pharmacological interventions (e.g., mesalamine), non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., medical nutrition therapy), and elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis? • Do the (comparative) effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Laparoscopic "fast-track" sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis disease in Germany. Results of a prospective quality assurance program.
Author Tsilimparis N., Haase O., Wendling P., Kipfmüller K., Schmid M., Engemann R., Schwenk W.
Country Klinik für Allgemein-, Visceral-, Gefäss- und Thoraxchirurgie, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Year 2010
Numbers Pubmed ID: 20812161

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Extraction Form for KQs 2 and 4
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Elective surgery
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country Germany
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Germany
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Germany
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Not reported (or unclear)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name Fast-track Kolon II
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2005
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2008
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria all patients with elective laparoscopic sigma resection for diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria emergency surgery within 24 hours of admission, ileus, perforation, <18 years old, pregnant
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Prospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? No imaging
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study) AEs not extracted: any cardiac, any pulmonary, any renal, any urogenital, any neurological/psychiatric, any catheter related, any thrombotic, subcutaneous wound healing disorder
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Elective surgery Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 42
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 63
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Range 23, 91
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data <60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
42
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
60-69
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
33
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
>69
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
25
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Uncomplicated diverticulitis 100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis 100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: AE - 30 day mortality (post-surgical, CD V)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 846
Counts 2
Percentage 0.2
Outcome: AE - 30 day mortality (post-surgical, CD V)      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 358
Counts 0
Percentage 0
Outcome: AE - 30 day mortality (post-surgical, CD V)      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 277
Counts 0
Percentage 0
Outcome: AE - 30 day mortality (post-surgical, CD V)      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 211
Counts 2
Percentage 1
Outcome: Hospitalization (or re-hospitalization) for diverticulitis (avoidance)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 846
Counts 33
Percentage 3.9
note P-value for trend across age groups 0.81
Outcome: Hospitalization (or re-hospitalization) for diverticulitis (avoidance)      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 358
Counts 15
Percentage 4.2
Outcome: Hospitalization (or re-hospitalization) for diverticulitis (avoidance)      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 277
Counts 9
Percentage 3.3
Outcome: Hospitalization (or re-hospitalization) for diverticulitis (avoidance)      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 211
Counts 9
Percentage 4.3
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 846
Counts 17
Percentage 2
note P-value across age groups 0.605
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 358
Counts 6
Percentage 1.7
note
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 277
Counts 5
Percentage 1.8
note
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 211
Counts 6
Percentage 2.8
note
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 846
Counts 7
Percentage 0.8
note P-value across age groups 0.042
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 358
Counts 6
Percentage 1.7
note
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 277
Counts 1
Percentage 0.4
note
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 211
Counts 0
Percentage 0
note
Outcome: AE - Bleed requiring transfusion (CD II)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 846
Counts 6
Percentage 0.7
note P-value across age groups 0.06
Outcome: AE - Bleed requiring transfusion (CD II)      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 358
Counts 2
Percentage 0.6
note
Outcome: AE - Bleed requiring transfusion (CD II)      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 277
Counts 0
Percentage 0
note
Outcome: AE - Bleed requiring transfusion (CD II)      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 211
Counts 4
Percentage 1.9
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 846
Counts 5
Percentage 0.6
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 358
Counts 0
Percentage 0
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 277
Counts 3
Percentage 1.1
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 211
Counts 2
Percentage 1
note P across subgroups 0.155
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 846
Counts 2
Percentage 0.2
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: age <60
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 358
Counts 0
Percentage 0
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: age 60-69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 277
Counts 0
Percentage 0
note
Outcome: AE - Ileus      Population: age >69
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


NR years

N Analyzed 211
Counts 2
Percentage 1
note P across subgroups 0.05


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q14: Cochrane - Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q17: Cochrane - Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q18: Cochrane - FOR OBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q1: ROBINS-I 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q3: ROBINS-I 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q4: ROBINS-I 1.5. If Y/PY to 1.4: Were confounding domains that were controlled for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q5: ROBINS-I 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q6: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q7: ROBINS-I 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q8: ROBINS-I 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q9: ROBINS-I 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q10: ROBINS-I 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q12: ROBINS-I 2.5. If Y/PY to 2.2 and 2.3, or N/PN to 2.4: Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q13: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q2: Did the study divide the follow up time of each individual participant into the different interventions?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q11: Did the start and follow up calendar years coincide for most participants in the study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q19: Cochrane - FOR SUBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.