5 research outputs found

    Hemopatch® is effective and safe to use: real-world data from a prospective European registry study.

    Get PDF
    Surgical procedures are often impeded by bleeding and/or leakage of body fluids. These complications cannot always be resolved by conventional surgical techniques. Hemopatch® is a hemostatic patch that also functions as a sealant. Here we document the effectiveness and safety of Hemopatch® for routine procedures of multiple surgical disciplines. To this end, we performed a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational registry study. Patients were eligible if they had received Hemopatch® during an open or minimally invasive procedure in one of these specialties: hepatobiliary, cardiovascular, urological, neurological/spinal, general, or lung surgery. Patients were excluded if they had a known hypersensitivity to bovine proteins or brilliant blue, intraoperative pulsatile or severe bleeding and/or infection at the target application site (TAS). The primary endpoint for intraoperative effectiveness was hemostasis assessed as the percentage of patients achieving hemostasis within 2 min and the percentage of patients achieving hemostasis without re-bleeding at the time of surgical closure. The registry enrolled 621 patients at 23 study sites in six European countries. Six hundred twenty patients had completed follow-up information. Hemostasis within 2 min was achieved at 463 (74.5%) of all 621 TASs. Hemostasis without re-bleeding was observed at 620 (99.8%) TASs. Adverse events were reported in 64 patients (10.3%). This Hemopatch® registry shows that Hemopatch® efficiently establishes hemostasis and sealing in a variety of surgical specialties, including minimally invasive procedures. Furthermore, we provide evidence for the safety of Hemopatch® across all the specialties included in the registry. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03392662

    Effects of Reoperation Timing on Survival among Recurrent Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective Multicentric Descriptive Study

    No full text
    Glioblastoma inevitably recurs, but no standard regimen has been established for treating this recurrent disease. Several reports claim that reoperative surgery can improve survival, but the effects of reoperation timing on survival have rarely been investigated. We, therefore, evaluated the relationship between reoperation timing and survival in recurrent GBM. A consecutive cohort of unselected patients (real-world data) from three neuro-oncology cancer centers was analyzed (a total of 109 patients). All patients underwent initial maximal safe resection followed by treatment according to the Stupp protocol. Those meeting the following criteria during progression were indicated for reoperation and were further analyzed in this study: (1) The tumor volume increased by >20–30% or a tumor was rediscovered after radiological disappearance; (2) The patient’s clinical status was satisfactory (KS ≥ 70% and PS WHO ≤ gr. 2); (3) The tumor was localized without multifocality; (4) The minimum expected tumor volume reduction was above 80%. A univariate Cox regression analysis of postsurgical survival (PSS) revealed a statistically significant effect of reoperation on PSS from a threshold of 16 months after the first surgery. Cox regression models that stratified the Karnofsky score with age adjustment confirmed a statistically significant improvement in PSS for time-to-progression (TTP) thresholds of 22 and 24 months. The patient groups exhibiting the first recurrence at 22 and 24 months had better survival rates than those exhibiting earlier recurrences. For the 22-month group, the HR was 0.5 with a 95% CI of (0.27, 0.96) and a p-value of 0.036. For the 24-month group, the HR was 0.5 with a 95% CI of (0.25, 0.96) and a p-value of 0.039. Patients with the longest survival were also the best candidates for repeated surgery. Later recurrence of glioblastoma was associated with higher survival rates after reoperation

    Effects of reoperation timing on survival among recurrent glioblastoma patients: A retrospective multicentric descriptive study

    No full text
    Glioblastoma inevitably recurs, but no standard regimen has been established for treating this recurrent disease. Several reports claim that reoperative surgery can improve survival, but the effects of reoperation timing on survival have rarely been investigated. We, therefore, evaluated the relationship between reoperation timing and survival in recurrent GBM. A consecutive cohort of unselected patients (real-world data) from three neuro-oncology cancer centers was analyzed (a total of 109 patients). All patients underwent initial maximal safe resection followed by treatment according to the Stupp protocol. Those meeting the following criteria during progression were indicated for reoperation and were further analyzed in this study: (1) The tumor volume increased by >20-30% or a tumor was rediscovered after radiological disappearance; (2) The patient's clinical status was satisfactory (KS = 70% and PS WHO = gr. 2); (3) The tumor was localized without multifocality; (4) The minimum expected tumor volume reduction was above 80%. A univariate Cox regression analysis of postsurgical survival (PSS) revealed a statistically significant effect of reoperation on PSS from a threshold of 16 months after the first surgery. Cox regression models that stratified the Karnofsky score with age adjustment confirmed a statistically significant improvement in PSS for time-to-progression (TTP) thresholds of 22 and 24 months. The patient groups exhibiting the first recurrence at 22 and 24 months had better survival rates than those exhibiting earlier recurrences. For the 22-month group, the HR was 0.5 with a 95% CI of (0.27, 0.96) and a p-value of 0.036. For the 24-month group, the HR was 0.5 with a 95% CI of (0.25, 0.96) and a p-value of 0.039. Patients with the longest survival were also the best candidates for repeated surgery. Later recurrence of glioblastoma was associated with higher survival rates after reoperation.65269705; 00159816; 00209805; Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky, MZCR: 00098892, NU20-03-00148, NU21-03-00195Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [NU21-03-00195, NU20-03-00148, 00098892, 00209805, 65269705, 00159816

    Trends and outcomes for non‑elective neurosurgical procedures in Central Europe during the COVID‑19 pandemic

    Get PDF
    The world currently faces the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Little is known about the efects of a pandemic on non-elective neurosurgical practices, which have continued under modifed conditions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This knowledge might be critical for the ongoing second coronavirus wave and potential restrictions on health care. We aimed to determine the incidence and 30-day mortality rate of various non-elective neurosurgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.A retrospective, multi-centre observational cohort study among neurosurgical centres within Austria, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland was performed. Incidence of neurosurgical emergencies and related 30-day mortality rates were determined for a period refecting the peak pandemic of the frst wave in all participating countries (i.e. March 16th–April 15th, 2020), and compared to the same period in prior years (2017, 2018, and 2019).A total of 4,752 emergency neurosurgical cases were reviewed over a 4-year period. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a general decline in the incidence of non-elective neurosurgical cases, which was driven by a reduced number of traumatic brain injuries, spine conditions, and chronic subdural hematomas. Thirty-day mortality did not signifcantly increase overall or for any of the conditions examined during the peak of the pandemic.The neurosurgical community in these three European countries observed a decrease in the incidence of some neurosurgical emergencies with 30-day mortality rates comparable to previous years (2017–2019). Lower incidence of neurosurgical cases is likely related to restrictions placed on mobility within countries, but may also involve delayed patient presentation.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCReviewedFacultyResearcherPostdoctora

    Survey of the year 2004 commercial optical biosensor literature

    No full text
    corecore