A comparison between real-time intraoperative voice dictation and the operative report in laparoscopic cholecystectomy:a multicenter prospective observational study

Purpose: The current operative report often inadequately reflects events occurring during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The addition of intraoperative video recording to the operative report has already proven to add important information. It was hypothesized that real-time intraoperative voice dictation (RIVD) can provide an equal or more complete overview of the operative procedure compared to the narrative operative report (NR) produced postoperatively. Methods: SONAR is a multicenter prospective observational trial, conducted at four surgical centers in the Netherlands. Elective LCs of patients aged 18 years and older were included. Participating surgeons were requested to dictate the essential steps of LC during surgery. RIVDs and NRs were reviewed according to the stepwise LC guideline of the Dutch Society for Surgery. The cumulative adequacy rates for RIVDs were compared with those of the postoperatively written NR. Results: 79 of 90 cases were eligible for inclusion and available for further analysis. RIVD resulted in a significantly higher adequacy rate compared to NR for the circumferential dissection of the cystic duct and artery (NR 32.5% vs. RIVD 61.0%, P = 0.016). NR had higher adequacy rates in reporting the transection of the cystic duct (NR 100% vs. RIVD 77.9%, P = &lt; 0.001) and the removal of the gallbladder from the liver bed (NR 98.7% vs. RIVD 68.8%, P &lt; 0.001). The total adequacy was not significantly different between the two reporting methods (NR 78.0% vs. RIVD 76.4%, P = 1.00). Conclusion: Overall, the adequacy of RIVD is comparable to the postoperatively written NR in reporting surgical steps in LC. However, the most essential surgical step, the circumferential dissection of the cystic duct and artery, was reported more adequately in RIVD.</p

External validation of a prognostic model incorporating quantitative PET image features in esophageal cancer

Aim Enhanced prognostic models are required to improve risk stratification of patients with oesophageal cancer so treatment decisions can be optimised. The primary aim was to externally validate a published prognostic model incorporating PET image features. Transferability of the model was compared using only clinical variables. Methods This was a Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) type 3 study. The model was validated against patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy according to the Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS) trial regimen using pre- and post-harmonised image features. The Kaplan–Meier method with log-rank significance tests assessed risk strata discrimination. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed model calibration. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results Between 2010 and 2015, 449 patients were included in the development (n = 302), internal validation (n = 101) and external validation (n = 46) cohorts. No statistically significant difference in OS between patient quartiles was demonstrated in prognostic models incorporating PET image features (X2 = 1.42, df = 3, p = 0.70) or exclusively clinical variables (age, disease stage and treatment; X2 = 1.19, df = 3, p = 0.75). The calibration slope β of both models was not significantly different from unity (p = 0.29 and 0.29, respectively). Risk groups defined using only clinical variables suggested differences in OS, although these were not statistically significant (X2 = 0.71, df = 2, p = 0.70). Conclusion The prognostic model did not enable significant discrimination between the validation risk groups, but a second model with exclusively clinical variables suggested some transferable prognostic ability. PET harmonisation did not significantly change the results of model validation

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

Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is a rise in incidence of esophageal carcinoma due to increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma. Probably the only curative option to date is the use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. Traditional open esophageal resection is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Furthermore, this approach involves long intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay and long recovery period. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce the morbidity and accelerate the post-operative recovery.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Comparison between traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a multi-center, randomized trial. Patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal junction tumors (Siewert I) are eligible for inclusion. Prior thoracic surgery and cervical esophageal carcinoma are indications for exclusion. The surgical technique involves a right thoracotomy with lung blockade and laparotomy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis for the traditional group. The minimally invasive procedure involves a right thoracoscopy in prone position with a single lumen tube and laparoscopy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis. All patients in both groups will undergo identical pre-operative and post-operative protocol. Primary endpoint of this study are post-operative respiratory complications within the first two post-operative weeks confirmed by clinical, radiological and sputum culture data. Secondary endpoints are the operative data, the post-operative data and oncological data such as quality of the specimen and survival. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to open procedure. Post-operative data include morbidity (major and minor), quality of life tests and hospital stay.</p> <p>Based on current literature and the experience of all participating centers, an incidence of pulmonary complications for 57% in the traditional arm and 29% in the minimally invasive arm, it is estimated that per arm 48 patients are needed. This is based on a two-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Knowing that approximately 20% of the patients will be excluded, we will randomize 60 patients per arm.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The TIME-trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized study to define the role of minimally invasive esophageal resection in patients with resectable intrathoracic and junction esophageal cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration (Netherlands Trial Register)</p> <p><a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2040">NTR2452</a></p

Preoperative biliary drainage for periampullary tumors causing obstructive jaundice; DRainage vs. (direct) OPeration (DROP-trial)

BACKGROUND: Surgery in patients with obstructive jaundice caused by a periampullary (pancreas, papilla, distal bile duct) tumor is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications than in non-jaundiced patients. Preoperative biliary drainage was introduced in an attempt to improve the general condition and thus reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality. Early studies showed a reduction in morbidity. However, more recently the focus has shifted towards the negative effects of drainage, such as an increase of infectious complications. Whether biliary drainage should always be performed in jaundiced patients remains controversial. The randomized controlled multicenter DROP-trial (DRainage vs. Operation) was conceived to compare the outcome of a 'preoperative biliary drainage strategy' (standard strategy) with that of an 'early-surgery' strategy, with respect to the incidence of severe complications (primary-outcome measure), hospital stay, number of invasive diagnostic tests, costs, and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor, eligible for exploration after staging with CT scan, and scheduled to undergo a "curative" resection, will be randomized to either "early surgical treatment" (within one week) or "preoperative biliary drainage" (for 4 weeks) and subsequent surgical treatment (standard treatment). Primary outcome measure is the percentage of severe complications up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size calculation is based on the equivalence design for the primary outcome measure. If equivalence is found, the comparison of the secondary outcomes will be essential in selecting the preferred strategy. Based on a 40% complication rate for early surgical treatment and 48% for preoperative drainage, equivalence is taken to be demonstrated if the percentage of severe complications with early surgical treatment is not more than 10% higher compared to standard treatment: preoperative biliary drainage. Accounting for a 10% dropout, 105 patients are needed in each arm resulting in a study population of 210 (alpha = 0.95, beta = 0.8). DISCUSSION: The DROP-trial is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not preoperative biliary drainage is to be performed in patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection versus infliximab treatment of distal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomized multicenter trial (LIR!C-trial)

Contains fulltext : 69534.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: With the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohn's disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction.The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohn's disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohn's disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007. DISCUSSION: The LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR1150

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitisA and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitisB in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

Background: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy. The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and powe

Intervju: akademik Jakša Barbić

Over the past 20 years evidence has accumulated confirming the immunomodulatory role of the appendix in ulcerative colitis (UC). This led to the idea that appendectomy might alter the clinical course of established UC. The objective of this body of research is to evaluate the short-term and medium-term efficacy of appendectomy to maintain remission in patients with UC, and to establish the acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to standard treatment. These paired phase III multicenter prospective randomised studies will include patients over 18 years of age with an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis and a disease relapse within 12 months prior to randomisation. Patients need to have been medically treated until complete clinical (Mayo score <3) and endoscopic (Mayo score 0 or 1) remission. Patients will then be randomised 1:1 to a control group (maintenance 5-ASA treatment, no appendectomy) or elective laparoscopic appendectomy plus maintenance treatment. The primary outcome measure is the one year cumulative UC relapse rate - defined both clinically and endoscopically as a total Mayo-score ≥5 with endoscopic subscore of 2 or 3. Secondary outcomes that will be assessed include the number of relapses per patient at 12 months, the time to first relapse, health related quality of life and treatment costs, and number of colectomies in each arm. The ACCURE and ACCURE-UK trials will provide evidence on the role and acceptability of appendectomy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis and the effects of appendectomy on the disease course. NTR2883 ; ISRCTN5652301