The HAC Trial (Harmonic for Acute Cholecystitis) Study. Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of Harmonic(H) versus Monopolar Diathermy (M) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) in adults

Fausto Catena, Luca Ansaloni, Salomone Di Saverio, Filippo Gazzotti, Federico Coccolini, Antonio Daniele Pinna, Fausto Catena, Luca Ansaloni, Salomone Di Saverio, Filippo Gazzotti, Federico Coccolini, Antonio Daniele Pinna

Abstract

Background: In the developmental stage of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) it was considered 'unsafe' or 'technically difficult' to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (AC). With increasing experience in laparoscopic surgery, a number of centers have reported on the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, suggesting that it is technically feasible but at the expense of a high conversion rate, which can be up to 35 per cent and common bile duct lesions.The HARMONIC SCALPEL (H) is the leading ultrasonic cutting and coagulating surgical device, offering surgeons important benefits including: minimal lateral thermal tissue damage, minimal charring and desiccation.Harmonic Scalpel technology reduces the need for ligatures with simultaneous cutting and coagulation: moreover there is not electricity to or through the patient Harmonic Scalpel has a greater precision near vital structures and it produces minimal smoke with improved visibility in the surgical field.In retrospective series LC performed with H was demonstrated feasible and effective with minimal operating time and blood loss: it was reported also a low conversion rate (3.9%).However there are not prospective randomized controlled trials showing the advantages of H compared to MD (the commonly used electrical scalpel) in LC.

Methods/design: Aim of this RCT is to demonstrate that H can decrease the conversion rate compared to MD in LC for AC, without a significant increase of morbidity.The patients will be allocated in two groups: in the first group the patient will be submitted to early LC within 72 hours after the diagnosis with H while in the second group will be submitted to early LC within 72 hours with MD.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00746850.

References

    1. Rai R, Sinha A, Rai S. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (Br J Surg 2005; 92: 44–49) Br J Surg. 2005;92:494. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5042.
    1. Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Persiani R. The risk of biliary ductal injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Chir (Paris) 2004;141:343–53.
    1. Johansson M, Thune A, Nelvin L, Stiernstam M, Westman B, Lundell L. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2005;92:44–9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4836.
    1. Asoglu O, Ozmen V, Karanlik H, Igci A, Kecer M, Parlak M, Unal ES. Does the complication rate increase in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2004;14:81–6. doi: 10.1089/109264204322973844.
    1. Johansson M, Thune A, Blomqvist A, Nelvin L, Lundell L. Management of acute cholecystitis in the laparoscopic era: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:642–5. doi: 10.1016/S1091-255X(03)00065-9.
    1. Hüscher CG, Lirici MM, Di Paola M, Crafa F, Napolitano C, Mereu A, Recher A, Corradi A, Amini M. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy by ultrasonic dissection without cystic duct and artery ligature. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:442–51. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-9068-3.
    1. Schulz K. Assessing Allocation Concealment and Blinding in Randomised Controlled Trials: Why bother? Evid Based Nurs. 2001;4:4–6. doi: 10.1136/ebn.4.1.4.
    1. Lachin JM. Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9:312–26. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90046-3.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF. Statistics notes: Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. British Medical Journal. 2001;323:446–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7310.446.
    1. Schulz KF. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet. 1996;348:596–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)01201-9.
    1. Chalmers I. Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:1156–64. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.5.1156.
    1. Roberts C, Torgerson D. Baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal. 1999;319:185.
    1. Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren