Nationwide Association of Surgical Performance of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy With Patient Outcomes

IMPORTANCE: Suboptimal surgical performance is hypothesized to be associated with less favorable patient outcomes in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Establishing this association may lead to programs that promote better surgical performance of MIE and improve patient outcomes.OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between surgical performance and postoperative outcomes after MIE.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this nationwide cohort study of 15 Dutch hospitals that perform more than 20 MIEs per year, 7 masked expert MIE surgeons assessed surgical performance using videos and a previously developed and validated competency assessment tool (CAT). Each hospital submitted 2 representative videos of MIEs performed between November 4, 2021, and September 13, 2022. Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were included to examine patient outcomes.EXPOSURE: Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on their MIE-CAT performance score. Outcomes were compared between highest (top 25%) and lowest (bottom 25%) performing quartiles. Transthoracic MIE with gastric tube reconstruction.MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) within 30 days after surgery. Multilevel logistic regression, with clustering of patients within hospitals, was used to analyze associations between performance and outcomes.RESULTS:In total, 30 videos and 970 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.6 [9.1] years; 719 men [74.1%]) were included. The mean (SD) MIE-CAT score was 113.6 (5.5) in the highest performance quartile vs 94.1 (5.9) in the lowest. Severe postoperative complications occurred in 18.7% (41 of 219) of patients in the highest performance quartile vs 39.2% (40 of 102) in the lowest (risk ratio [RR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99). The highest vs the lowest performance quartile showed lower rates of conversions (1.8% vs 8.9%; RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21), intraoperative complications (2.7% vs 7.8%; RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-0.94), and overall postoperative complications (46.1% vs 65.7%; RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96). The R0 resection rate (96.8% vs 94.2%; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05) and lymph node yield (mean [SD], 38.9 [14.7] vs 26.2 [9.0]; RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 0.27-3.21) increased with oncologic-specific performance (eg, hiatus dissection, lymph node dissection). In addition, a high anastomotic phase score was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate (4.6% vs 17.7%; RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.31).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that better surgical performance is associated with fewer perioperative complications for patients with esophageal cancer on a national level. If surgical performance of MIE can be improved with MIE-CAT implementation, substantially better patient outcomes may be achievable.</p

DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL

Background: Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses. Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management. We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. Methods/design: The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used. The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-u

The Patient Navigator: Can a systematically developed online health information tool improve patient participation and outcomes related to the consultation in older patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer?

Background: Older cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals. Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers. Method: For the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator). Results: The Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition. Conclusion: Since the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients’ satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs

The Patient Navigator: Can a systematically developed online health information tool improve patient participation and outcomes related to the consultation in older patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Older cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers. METHOD: For the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator). RESULTS: The Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition. CONCLUSION: Since the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients’ satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs

The learning curve of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is associated with local recurrence: results from a multicentre external audit: results from a multicentre external audit

Aim: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been suggested as a potential solution for the resection of challenging mid and low rectal cancer. This relatively complex procedure has been implemented in many centres over the last years, despite the absence of long-term safety data. Recently, concern has arisen because of an increase in local recurrence in the implementation phase. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between accumulated experience and local recurrences. Method: An independent clinical researcher performed an external audit of consecutive series of all TaTME procedures in six centres in the Netherlands. Kaplan–Meier estimated local recurrence rates were calculated and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis performed to assess risk factors for local recurrence. Primary outcome was the local recurrence rate in the initial implementation (cases 1–10), continued adoption (cases 11-40) and prolonged experience (case 41 onward). Results: Six hundred and twenty-four consecutive patients underwent TaTME for rectal cancer with a median follow-up of 27 months (range 1–82 months). The estimated 2- and 3-year local recurrence rates were 4.6% and 6.6%, respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression revealed procedural experience to be an independent factor in multivariate analysis next to advanced stage (ycMRF+, pT3-4, pN+) and pelvic sepsis. Corrected analysis projected the 3-year local recurrence rates to be 9.7%, 3.3% and 3.5% for the implementation, continued adoption and prolonged experience cohorts, respectively. Conclusion: This multicentre study shows a high local recurrence rate (12.5%) after implementation of TaTME which lowers to an acceptable rate (3.4%) when experience increases. Therefore, intensified proctoring and further precautions must be implemented to reduce the unacceptably high risk of local recurrence at units starting this technique

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial

Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [ <60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Developmen

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis : A multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial

Background Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≤20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≤60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Findings Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Interpretation Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Funding Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis : A multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial

Background Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≤20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≤60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Findings Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54-3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Interpretation Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Funding Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development

DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. <it>A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL</it>

Abstract Background Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses. Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management. We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. Methods/design The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used. The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years. Discussion Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year. Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation. Trial Registration (Trial register number: NTR1478)</p