Physical activity in non-frail and frail older adults

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) is important for healthy ageing. Better insight into objectively measured PA levels in older adults is needed, since most previous studies employed self-report measures for PA assessment, which are associated with overestimation of PA. Aim: This study aimed to provide insight in objectively measured indoor and outdoor PA of older adults, and in PA differences by frailty levels. Methods: Data were collected among non-frail (N = 74) and frail (N = 10) subjects, aged 65 to 89 years. PA, measured for seven days with accelerometers and GPS-devices, was categorized into three levels of intensity (sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous PA). Results: Older adults spent most time in sedentary and light PA. Subjects spent 84.7%, 15.1% and 0.2% per day in sedentary, light and moderate-to-vigorous PA respectively. On average, older adults spent 9.8 (SD 23.7) minutes per week in moderate-to-vigorous activity, and 747.0 (SD 389.6) minutes per week in light activity. None of the subjects met the WHO recommendations of 150 weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA. Age-, sex- and health status-adjusted results revealed no differences in PA between non-frail and frail older adults. Subjects spent significantly more sedentary time at home, than not at home. Non-frail subjects spent significantly more time not at home during moderate-to-vigorous activities, than at home. Conclusions: Objective assessment of PA in older adults revealed that most PA was of light intensity, and time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA was very low. None of the older adults met the World Health Organization recommendations for PA. These levels of MVPA are much lower than generally reported based on self-reported PA. Future studies should employ objective methods, and age specific thresholds for healthy PA levels in older adults are needed. These results emphasize the need for effective strategies for healthy PA levels for the growing proportion of older adults

The Impact of Ethnicity and Country of Birth on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Phenotype:A Prospective Cohort Study

Background and Aims: The number of patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], of non-Caucasian descent in Western Europe, is increasing. We aimed to explore the impact of ethnicity and country of birth on IBD phenotype.Methods: IBD patients treated in the eight University Medical Centers in The Netherlands [Dutch IBD Biobank] were divided into two groups according to their ethnicity: 1] Caucasian patients of Western and Central European descent [CEU]; and 2] patients of non-Caucasian descent [non-CEU]. The non-CEU group was subdivided according to country of birth, into: born in The Netherlands or Western Europe [non-CEU European born]; or born outside Western-Europe who migrated to The Netherlands [non-CEU non-European born]. Both comparisons were analysed for phenotype differences [by chi-square test].Results: The Dutch IBD Biobank included 2921 CEU patients and 233 non-CEU patients. Non-CEU Crohn's disease [CD] patients more often had upper gastro-intestinal disease [16% vs 8%, p = 0.001] and anal stenosis [10% vs 4%, p = 0.002] than CEU CD patients. The use of anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] agents and immunomodulators was higher in non-CEU IBD patients than in CEU IBD patients [45% vs 38%, p = 0.042] and [77% vs 66%, p = 0.001], respectively. Non-CEU IBD patients born in Europe [n = 116] were diagnosed at a lower age than non-CEU IBD patients born outside Europe [n = 115] [at 22.7 vs 28.9 years old, p &lt;0.001].Conclusion: Non-Caucasians had more severe disease behaviour than Caucasians. Non-CEU patients born in Europe were diagnosed at a lower age with IBD than those born outside Europe who migrated to The Netherlands.</p

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA):long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background: Incisional hernia occurs approximately in 40% of high-risk patients after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh placement has shown promising results, but long-term outcomes are needed. The present study aimed to assess the long-term incisional hernia rates of the previously conducted PRIMA trial with radiological follow-up. Methods: In the PRIMA trial, patients with increased risk of incisional hernia formation (AAA or BMI ≥27 kg/m2) were randomised in a 1:2:2 ratio to primary suture, onlay mesh or sublay mesh closure in three different countries in eleven institutions. Incisional hernia during follow-up was diagnosed by any of: CT, ultrasound and physical examination, or during surgery. Assessors and patients were blinded until 2-year follow-up. Time-to-event analysis according to intention-to-treat principle was performed with the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. Trial registration: NCT00761475 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Findings: Between 2009 and 2012, 480 patients were randomized: 107 primary suture, 188 onlay mesh and 185 sublay mesh. Five-year incisional hernia rates were 53.4% (95% CI: 40.4–64.8), 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7–38.8), 29.8% (95% CI: 17.9–42.6), respectively. Compared to primary suture, onlay mesh (HR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.248–0.614, p &lt; 0.001) and sublay mesh (HR: 0.485, 95% CI: 0.309–0.761, p = 0.002) were associated with a significantly lower risk of incisional hernia development. Interpretation: Prophylactic mesh placement remained effective in reducing incisional hernia occurrence after midline laparotomy in high-risk patients during long-term follow-up. Hernia rates in the primary suture group were higher than previously anticipated. Funding: B. Braun.</p

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA):long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background: Incisional hernia occurs approximately in 40% of high-risk patients after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh placement has shown promising results, but long-term outcomes are needed. The present study aimed to assess the long-term incisional hernia rates of the previously conducted PRIMA trial with radiological follow-up. Methods: In the PRIMA trial, patients with increased risk of incisional hernia formation (AAA or BMI ≥27 kg/m2) were randomised in a 1:2:2 ratio to primary suture, onlay mesh or sublay mesh closure in three different countries in eleven institutions. Incisional hernia during follow-up was diagnosed by any of: CT, ultrasound and physical examination, or during surgery. Assessors and patients were blinded until 2-year follow-up. Time-to-event analysis according to intention-to-treat principle was performed with the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. Trial registration: NCT00761475 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Findings: Between 2009 and 2012, 480 patients were randomized: 107 primary suture, 188 onlay mesh and 185 sublay mesh. Five-year incisional hernia rates were 53.4% (95% CI: 40.4–64.8), 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7–38.8), 29.8% (95% CI: 17.9–42.6), respectively. Compared to primary suture, onlay mesh (HR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.248–0.614, p &lt; 0.001) and sublay mesh (HR: 0.485, 95% CI: 0.309–0.761, p = 0.002) were associated with a significantly lower risk of incisional hernia development. Interpretation: Prophylactic mesh placement remained effective in reducing incisional hernia occurrence after midline laparotomy in high-risk patients during long-term follow-up. Hernia rates in the primary suture group were higher than previously anticipated. Funding: B. Braun.</p

A master's exam in surgical training

AN EXAMPLE FOR THE PRESENT DAY: The current requirement for explicit quality standards and examination of surgeons is an opportunity to contemplate surgical training from a historical perspective by looking at the regulations of the Amsterdam Surgeons' Guild (1461-1736). At that time Amsterdam surgeons usually trained for five years in a master-apprentice relationship under the guidance of a master surgeon in a surgeon's shop. An important part of the surgical training took place in the botanical gardens and anatomical theatre, where, during the weekly lessons, the praelector anatomiae would also demonstrate anatomy on the bodies of the deceased. Surgical training was complete after the trainee had passed the 'meesterproef' (master's exam), in which the manufacturing of lancets, blood-letting and performing a trepanation on a skull played a major part. However, over the course of time the final master's exam as the ultimate test of capability at the end of surgical training has disappeared. From the perspective of renewed interest in explicit quality standards and examination of surgeons, the reintroduction of a modern master's exam should perhaps be considered.</p