Randomised controlled trial of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND Study)

Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Pain after thoracoscopic surgery may increase the incidence of postoperative complications and impair recovery. Guidelines lack consensus regarding postoperative analgesia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the mean pain scores of different analgesic techniques (thoracic epidural analgesia, continuous or single-shot unilateral regional analgesia and only systemic analgesia) after thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until 1 October 2022. Patients undergoing at least >70% anatomical resections through thoracoscopy reporting postoperative pain scores were included. Due to a high inter-study variability an explorative meta-analysis next to an analytic meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence has been evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies comprising 5573 patients were included. Mean 24, 48 and 72 h pain scores with 95% confidence interval on a 0-10 scale were calculated. Length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, additional opioids and the use of rescue analgesia were analysed as secondary outcomes. A common-effect size was estimated with an extreme high heterogeneity for which pooling of the studies was not appropriate. An exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable mean pain scores of Numeric Rating Scale <4 for all analgesic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This extensive literature review and attempt to pool mean pain scores for meta-analysis demonstrates that unilateral regional analgesia is gaining popularity over thoracic epidural analgesia in thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, despite great heterogeneity and limitations of current studies precluding such recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID number 205311

Patients' preferences regarding invasive mediastinal nodal staging of resectable lung cancer

Background: Variability in practice and ongoing debate on optimal invasive mediastinal staging of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are widely described in the literature. Patients' preferences on this topic have, however, been underexposed so far. Methods: An internet-based questionnaire was distributed among MEDIASTrial partici-pants (NTR6528, randomization of patients to mediastinoscopy or not in the case of negative endosonography). Literature, expert opinion and patient interviews resulted in five attributes: the risk of a futile lung resection (oncologically futile in case of unforeseen N2 disease), the length of the staging period, resection of the primary tumor, complications of staging procedures and the mediastinoscopy scar. The relative importance (RI) of each attribute was assessed by using adaptive conjoint analysis and hierarchical Bayes estimation. treatment trade-off was used to examine the acceptable proportion of avoided futile lung resections to cover the burden of confirmatory mediastinoscopy. Results: Ninety-seven patients completed the questionnaire (57%). The length of the staging period was significantly the most important attribute (RI 26.24; 95% CI: 25.05-27.43), followed by the risk of a futile surgical lung resection (RI 23.44; 95% CI: 22.28-24.60) and resection of the primary tumor (RI 22.21; 95% CI: 21.09-23.33). Avoidance of 7% (IQR 1- >14%) futile lung resections would cover the burden of confirmatory mediastinoscopy, with a dichotomy among patients always (39%) or never (38%) willing to undergo confirmatory mediastinoscopy after N2 and N3-negative endosonography. Conclusion: Although a strong dichotomy among patients always or never willing to undergo confirmatory mediastinoscopy was found, the length of the staging period was the most important attribute in invasive mediastinal staging according to patients with resectable NSCLC. Trial NotAnalysis and support of clinical decision makin

Pulmonary metastasectomy with lymphadenectomy for colorectal pulmonary metastases: a systematic review

Background: Routine lymphadenectomy during metastasectomy for pulmonary metastases of colorectal cancer has been recommended by several recent expert consensus meetings. However, evidence supporting lymphadenectomy is limited. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the impact of simultaneous lymph node metastases on patient survival during metastasectomy for colorectal pulmonary metastases (CRPM).Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines of studies on lymphadenectomy during pulmonary metastasectomy for CRPM. Articles published between 2000 and 2020 were identified from Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library without language restriction. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of included studies. Survival rates were assessed and compared for the presence and level of nodal involvement.Results: Following review of 8054 studies by paper and abstract, 27 studies comprising 3619 patients were included in the analysis. All patients included in these studies underwent lymphadenectomy during pulmonary metastasectomy for CRPM. A total of 690 patients (19.1%) had simultaneous lymph node metastases. Five-year overall survival for patients with and without lymph node metastases was 18.2% and 51.3%, respectively (p < .001). Median survival for patients with lymph node metastases was 27.9 months compared to 58.9 months in patients without lymph node metastases (p < .001). Five-year overall survival for patients with N1 and N2 lymph node metastases was 40.7% and 10.9%, respectively (p = .064).Conclusion: Simultaneous lymph node metastases of CRPM have a detrimental impact on survival and this is most apparent for mediastinal lymph node metastases. Therefore, lymphadenectomy during pulmonary metastasectomy for CRPM can be advised to obtain important prognostic value. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Thoracic surgery in the Netherlands

The purpose of this article, part of the Thoracic Surgery Worldwide series, is to provide a descriptive review of how thoracic surgery is organized in the Netherlands. General information is provided on the Dutch healthcare system, as well as on how Dutch thoracic surgeons are organized and trained. Additionally, this study provides information on our national quality surveillance system, an overview of the most common thoracic surgeries performed in our country, and details of academic research conducted by Dutch medical specialists. Furthermore, we discuss current challenges and future perspectives. In the Netherlands general thoracic surgical procedures are performed by approximately 110 general thoracic surgeons and 25 of the 135 cardiothoracic surgeons. Dutch thoracic surgeons provide minimally invasive lung surgery, chest wall surgery, thymic and mediastinal surgery, and surgical diagnosis and treatment of pleural disorders. Some recently published data on hospital mortality and postoperative adverse events of thoracic surgeries are reported. Furthermore, the structure of the thoracic surgical education and training program is discussed, highlighting the particular structure of two educational programs for thoracic surgery via a general thoracic and cardiothoracic surgery program. To assure high-quality surgical care, the Netherlands has a well-structured national quality surveillance system, involving frequent site visits and mandatory participation in the national lung cancer surgery registry for all hospitals. In terms of academic research, the Netherlands ranked 14th worldwide on number of clinical trials conducted across all medical disciplines in 2021. Furthermore, several thoracic-related (inter-)national multicenter randomized trials which are currently performed and initiated by Dutch hospital research groups are mentioned. Finally, future challenges and advances of Dutch thoracic surgery are addressed, including the implementation of lung cancer screening, imbalanced labor market, and centralization of care