Combining autologous ventral hernia repair using component separation with DIEP breast reconstruction

License: CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Concern about flap viability and abdominal wall integrity would normally exclude a patient with a large ventral midline hernia from having a breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. Ventral hernia repair using the abdominoplasty approach has been reported before. The abdominoplasty flap would normally be discarded. This article presents a unique case of a patient with a large incisional midline hernia who had a combined procedure of autologous hernia repair using component separation technique and DIEP breast reconstruction. The indications for DIEP breast reconstruction are therewith expanded

A prospective analysis of false positive events in a National Colon Cancer Surveillance Program

BACKGROUND: The survival benefits of colon cancer surveillance programs are well delineated, but less is known about the magnitude of false positive testing. The objective of this study was to estimate the false positive rate and positive predictive value of testing as part of a surveillance program based on national guidelines, and to estimate the degree of testing and resource use needed to identify a curable recurrence. METHODS: Analysis of clinically significant events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, false positive events, true cancer recurrences, time to confirmation of diagnosis, and resource use (radiology, blood samples, colonoscopies, consultations) among patients included in a randomised colon cancer surveillance trial. RESULTS: 110 patients surgically treated for colon cancer were followed according to national guidelines for 1884 surveillance months. 1105 tests (503 blood samples, 278 chest x-rays, 209 liver ultrasounds, 115 colonoscopies) and 1186 health care consultations were performed. Of the 48 events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, 34 (71%) represented false positives. Thirty-one (65%) were initiated by new symptoms, and 17 (35%) were initiated by test results. Fourteen patients had true cancer recurrence; 7 resections of recurrent disease were performed, 4 of which were successful R0 metastasis Resections. 276 tests and 296 healthcare consultations were needed per R0 resection; the cost per R0 surgery was £ 103207. There was a 29% probability (positive predictive value) of recurrent cancer when a diagnostic work-up was initiated based on surveillance testing or patient complaints. CONCLUSION: We observed a high false positive rate and low positive predictive value for significant clinical events suggestive of possible colorectal cancer relapse in the setting of a post-treatment surveillance program based on national guidelines. Providers and their patients should have an appreciation for the modest positive predictive value inherent in colorectal cancer surveillance programs in order to make informed choices, which maximize quality of life during survivorship. Better means of tailoring surveillance programs based on patient risk would likely lead to more effective and cost-effective post-treatment follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143. Date of trial registration: 11(th) of December 2007

Preoperative Rectal Cancer Management: Wide International Practice Makes Outcome Comparison Challenging: Reply

In a letter to the editor Dr. Hottenrott provides valuable comments on our survey describing international preoperative rectal cancer management. In our opinion, three key messages are derived from our survey: First, most surgeons agree to neoadjuvant treatment when there is an increased risk of finding histologically positive circumferential margins. In addition, we found more than 40 other indications for neoadjuvant treatment (see our Table 4). This emphasizes the need for an international agreement, as different indications for neoadjuvant treatment will select noncomparable groups of patients in outcome studies. Second, we have shown (see our Table 6) that multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings significantly influence several important decisions in preoperative rectal cancer management. Interestingly, centers with regular MDT have a higher rate of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.62) and consider a threatened circumferential resection margin (CRM) as indication for neoadjuvant treatment (OR = 5.67). We believe that MDT improves preoperative management of rectal cancer by increasing adherence to national guidelines. Similar discussions in international rectal cancer societies are needed aiming towards an international consensus statement. Finally, our survey revealed sparse use (35% of all cases) of MRI. The goal for the radiologic examination in rectal cancer is to explore the tumor’s relation to nearby anatomical structures. This evaluation will conclude with TNM staging, important for chemoradiotheraphy, surgical treatment, and prognosis. Magnetic resonance imaging has a central role in this evaluation and should be the first choice radiologic modality. Not only is MRI crucial in detection of TNM stage but also plays a central role in determination of the tumor’s distance to the mesorectal fascia and the CRM. Magnetic resonance imaging has moderate sensitivity on T1 and T2 tumors, and should be supplemented with rectal ultrasound

International Preoperative Rectal Cancer Management: Staging, Neoadjuvant Treatment, and Impact of Multidisciplinary Teams

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates. METHODS: One hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years' experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventy-four percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II + III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81). CONCLUSIONS: There was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods

Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events

This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00572143.© 2008 Augestad et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Surgical treatment for rectal cancer: An international perspective on what the medical gastroenterologist needs to know

Rectal cancer accounts for one third of all colorectal cancers. The age adjusted death rates from colorectal cancer have declined over recent decades due to a combination of colorectal cancer screening, improved diagnostic tests, improved standardized surgical technique, improved medical support, neoadjuvant chemotherapies and radiation treatment or combinations of these. Because of complex treatment algorithms, use of multidisciplinary teams in the management of rectal cancer patients has also been popularized. Medical gastroenterologists performing colonoscopies are frequently the first health care provider to raise the suspicion of a rectal cancer. Although the diagnosis depends on histological confirmation, the endoscopic presentation is almost diagnostic in many cases. In order to meet the patient’s immediate needs for information, it is important that the endoscopist has knowledge about the investigations and treatment options that will be required for their patient. The aim of this paper is to describe the modern preoperative investigations and operative procedures commonly offered to rectal cancer patients taking into account perspectives of three colorectal surgeons, practicing in the USA, Europe and Asia

The One-stop trial : does electronic referral and booking by the general practitioner (GPs) to outpatient day case surgery reduce waiting time and costs? A randomized controlled trial protocol

Background: Waiting time and costs from referral to day case outpatient surgery are at an unacceptably high level. The waiting time in Norway averages 240 days for common surgical conditions. Furthermore, in North Norway the population is scattered throughout a large geographic area, making the cost of travel to a specialist examination before surgery considerable. Electronic standardised referrals and booking of day case outpatient surgery by GPs are possible through the National Health Network, which links all health care providers in an electronic network. New ways of using this network might reduce the waiting time and cost of outpatient day case surgery. Materials and Methods: In a randomised controlled trial, selected patients (inguinal hernia, gallstone disease and pilonidal sinus) referred to the university hospital are either randomised to direct electronic referral and booking for outpatient surgery (one stop), or to the traditional patient pathway where all patients are seen at the outpatient clinic several weeks ahead of surgery. Consultants in gastrointestinal surgery designed standardised referral forms and guidelines. New software has been designed making it possible to implement referral forms, guidelines and patient information in the GP's electronic health record. For "one-stop" referral, GPs must provide mandatory information about the specific condition. Referrals were linked to a booking system, enabling the GPs to book the hospital, day and time for outpatient surgery. The primary endpoints are waiting time and costs. The sample size calculation was based on waiting time. A reduction in waiting time of 60 days (effect size), 25%, is significant, resulting in a sample size of 120 patients in total. Discussion: Poor communication between primary and secondary care often results in inefficiencies and unsatisfactory outcomes. We hypothesised that standardised referrals would improve the quality of information, making it feasible to use a one-stop approach for all patients undergoing surgery on an outpatient basis for inguinal hernia, pilonidal sinus and gallstones. In this study we wanted to investigate the waiting time and cost-effectiveness of direct electronic referral and booking of outpatient surgery compared to the traditional patient pathway, where the patient is seen at the outpatient clinic prior to surgery. Trial registration: This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT0069249

The One-stop trial: Does electronic referral and booking by the general practitioner (GPs) to outpatient day case surgery reduce waiting time and costs? A randomized controlled trial protocol

Abstract Background Waiting time and costs from referral to day case outpatient surgery are at an unacceptably high level. The waiting time in Norway averages 240 days for common surgical conditions. Furthermore, in North Norway the population is scattered throughout a large geographic area, making the cost of travel to a specialist examination before surgery considerable. Electronic standardised referrals and booking of day case outpatient surgery by GPs are possible through the National Health Network, which links all health care providers in an electronic network. New ways of using this network might reduce the waiting time and cost of outpatient day case surgery. Materials and Methods In a randomised controlled trial, selected patients (inguinal hernia, gallstone disease and pilonidal sinus) referred to the university hospital are either randomised to direct electronic referral and booking for outpatient surgery (one stop), or to the traditional patient pathway where all patients are seen at the outpatient clinic several weeks ahead of surgery. Consultants in gastrointestinal surgery designed standardised referral forms and guidelines. New software has been designed making it possible to implement referral forms, guidelines and patient information in the GP's electronic health record. For "one-stop" referral, GPs must provide mandatory information about the specific condition. Referrals were linked to a booking system, enabling the GPs to book the hospital, day and time for outpatient surgery. The primary endpoints are waiting time and costs. The sample size calculation was based on waiting time. A reduction in waiting time of 60 days (effect size), 25%, is significant, resulting in a sample size of 120 patients in total. Discussion Poor communication between primary and secondary care often results in inefficiencies and unsatisfactory outcomes. We hypothesised that standardised referrals would improve the quality of information, making it feasible to use a one-stop approach for all patients undergoing surgery on an outpatient basis for inguinal hernia, pilonidal sinus and gallstones. In this study we wanted to investigate the waiting time and cost-effectiveness of direct electronic referral and booking of outpatient surgery compared to the traditional patient pathway, where the patient is seen at the outpatient clinic prior to surgery. Trial registration This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00692497</p