The ORANGE II PLUS - Trial: Open Versus Laparoscopic Hemihepatectomy

This study is currently recruiting participants.
Verified October 2013 by Maastricht University Medical Center
Sponsor:
Collaborators:
Henri Mondor University Hospital
Hopital Antoine Beclere
Saint Antoine University Hospital
RWTH Aachen University
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven
University Hospital, Ghent
San Raffaele University Hospital, Italy
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.
Cardiff University
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Maastricht University Medical Center
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01441856
First received: April 27, 2011
Last updated: October 11, 2013
Last verified: October 2013

April 27, 2011
October 11, 2013
October 2013
October 2015   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Time to functional recovery [ Time Frame: expected average of 4-10 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Time until a patient is functionally recovered
Time to functional recovery [ Time Frame: expected average of 4-10 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Time until a patient is funcionally recovered
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01441856 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
  • Length of hospital stay [ Time Frame: 30 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Total length of hospital stay
  • Readmission percentage [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
    Total percentage of patients being readmitted
  • Total morbidity [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
    Total morbidity during one year
  • Composite endpoint of liver specific morbidity [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
    Composite endpoint of liver specific morbidity(intra-abdominal bleeding, intra-abdominal abcess, ascites, postresectional liver failure, intra-operative mortality, bile leakage)
  • Long term incidence of incisional hernia [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Incidence of incisional hernia after 1 year
  • Quality of life [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    QoL assessment (QLQ-C30 + LM 21) during one year
  • Body image and cosmesis [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Influence of intervention on body image and cosmesis during one year
  • Reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Intraoperative blood loss [ Time Frame: During procedure ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Intraoperative time [ Time Frame: Surgical time from incision to closure ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Resection margin [ Time Frame: During pathology assessment ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Hospital and societal cost [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • 5-year overall survival [ Time Frame: 5 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Length of hospital stay [ Time Frame: 30 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Total length of hospital stay
  • Readmission percentage [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
    Total percentage of patients being readmmitted
  • Total morbidity [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
    Total morbidity during one year
  • Composite endpoint of liver specific morbidity [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
    Composite endpoint of liver specific morbidity(intra-abdominal bleeding, intra-abdominal abcess, ascites, postresectional liver failure, intra-operative mortality, bile leakage)
  • Long term incidence of incisional hernia [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Incidence of incisional hernia after 1 year
  • Quality of life [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    QoL assessment (QLQ-C30 + LM 21) during one year
  • Body image and cosmesis [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Influence of intervention on body image and cosmesis during one year
  • Reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
The ORANGE II PLUS - Trial: Open Versus Laparoscopic Hemihepatectomy
The ORANGE II PLUS - Trial: an International Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Open Versus Laparoscopic Hemihepatectomies.

The added value of the laparoscopic hemihepatectomy compared to the open hemihepatectomy has never been studied in a randomised controlled setting. Therefore, the multicentre international ORANGE II PLUS - trial has been constructed and will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery, hospital length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, resection margin, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, readmission percentage, (liver-specific) morbidity, quality of life, body image, reasons for delay of discharge after functional recovery, long term incidence of incisional hernias, hospital and societal costs during one year and overall five-year survival.

Liver resection for colorectal metastasis is the only potentially curative therapy and has become the standard of care in appropriately staged patients, offering 5-year survival rates of approximately 35-40%. Also for symptomatic benign lesions and those of uncertain nature or large size, liver resection is a widely accepted treatment. Open hepatectomy (OH) is the current standard of care for the management of primary and secondary malignancies. Although the feasibility of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been established, only select centres have used this technique as their primary modality.

Laparoscopic liver resection was first reported in 1991. Over the last decade the method has gained wide acceptance for various liver resection procedures. Multiple retrospective case series and reviews comparing open with laparoscopic liver resection indicate that laparoscopic liver resection can be applied safely for both malignant and benign liver lesions. Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with shorter hospital length of stay, reduced intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, earlier recovery and better quality of life. Initially the left lateral segments of the liver were chosen for anatomic laparoscopic resection with good results. Many liver centres worldwide are currently adopting laparoscopic surgery for resection of anterior segments, but relatively low volumes to operate on, a significant learning curve and lack of evidence restrict the majority of liver surgeons to further adopt and disseminate this technique. Recently indications for resectability have been broadened by new (neo)adjuvant chemotherapies and (radio)embolisation techniques. A new impulse for the laparoscopic management of liver lesions came after the first reports of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies. Major hepatic resections can be technically demanding and hold an increased risk for morbidity. It was demonstrated that in expert hands major anatomical laparoscopic liver resections were feasible with good efficacy and safety. Expert liver centres are already performing laparoscopic (extended) hemihepatectomies. Currently, in European centres a median hospital length of stay of 6.0 to 13.1 and 3.5 to 10.0 days is observed after respectively open and laparoscopic hepatic resection. In expert hands median duration of admission after major hepatic resection varies between 6 - 12.5 for open and 4 - 8.2 for laparoscopic surgery. However, reports are scares and level 1 evidence on this matter is still to be presented. Within the framework of optimising postoperative recovery, broader indications for resection and further adoption of laparoscopic liver surgery there is a need for a randomised trial.

Regarding postoperative care, enthusiasm has recently arisen for the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programme. This multimodal programme, derived from Kehlet's 1990's pioneer work in the multimodal surgical care field, involves optimisation of several aspects of the perioperative management of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. In patients undergoing segmental colectomy, the ERAS® programme enabled earlier recovery and consequently shorter hospital length of stay. Furthermore, a reduction of postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing intestinal resection was reported. These results stimulated liver surgeons of the ERAS® group (Maastricht, Edinburgh and Tromsö) to adapt the ERAS-programme to patients undergoing open liver resection. Van Dam et al. found a significantly reduced hospital length of stay after open liver resection when patients were managed within a multimodal ERAS programme. Besides a reduction of median total hospital length of stay from 8 to 6 days (25%), the data also suggested that a further reduction of stay could be possible as there was a delay between recovery and actual discharge of the patients. Moreover, Stoot et al. showed retrospectively, a further reduction in length of stay from 7 days to 5 days when patients were operated laparoscopically and managed within an ERAS programme. Also in this study there was a delay between recovery and actual discharge of the patients Earlier, Maessen et al. also reported a median delay to discharge of 2 days after patients had functionally recovered after colonic surgery managed within an ERAS programme. This delay is often linked to social problems, problems in homecare support or logistic problems.

The added value of the laparoscopic hemihepatectomy compared to the open hemihepatectomy has never been studied in a randomised controlled setting. Therefore, the multicentre international ORANGE II PLUS - trial has been constructed and will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy.

Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Subject)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Liver Lesions Requiring Hemihepatectomy
  • Procedure: Open or Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy
    Patients in this arm will undergo a left hemihepatectomy within an enhanced recover programme.
  • Procedure: Open or Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy
    Patients in this arm will undergo a right hemihepatectomy within an enhanced recover programme.
  • Active Comparator: Open or Laparocopic Left
    Open or Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy
    Intervention: Procedure: Open or Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy
  • Active Comparator: Open or Laparoscopic Right
    Open or Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy
    Intervention: Procedure: Open or Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy
  • Active Comparator: Prospective registry
    Prospective registry of patients that cannot be randomized (both open and laparoscopic left + right hemihepatectomy)
    Interventions:
    • Procedure: Open or Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy
    • Procedure: Open or Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Recruiting
250
October 2018
October 2015   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients requiring open or laparoscopic left / right hemihepatectomy for accepted indications
  • Able to understand the nature of the study and what will be required of the
  • Men and non-pregnant, non-lactating women between age 18-80
  • BMI between 18-35
  • Patients with ASA I-II-III

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to give written informed consent
  • Patients undergoing liver resection other than left or right hemihepatectomy
  • Patients with hepatic lesion(s), that are located with insufficient margin from vascular or biliary structures to be operated laparoscopically
  • Patients with ASA IV-V
  • Repeat hepatectomy.
Both
18 Years to 80 Years
No
Contact: Ronald M. van Dam, MD +31 43 387 74 89 r.vandam@mumc.nl
Contact: Cornelis C.H. Dejong, MD / PhD / Professor +31 43 387 65 43 chc.dejong@mumc.nl
Belgium,   Netherlands
 
NCT01441856
NL36215.068.11
Yes
Maastricht University Medical Center
Maastricht University Medical Center
  • Henri Mondor University Hospital
  • Hopital Antoine Beclere
  • Saint Antoine University Hospital
  • RWTH Aachen University
  • Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven
  • University Hospital, Ghent
  • San Raffaele University Hospital, Italy
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.
  • Cardiff University
Study Director: Cornelis H.C. Dejong, Professor Maastricht University Medical Centre
Principal Investigator: Ronald M. van Dam, Drs. Maastricht University Medical Centre
Maastricht University Medical Center
October 2013

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP