Liver Resection for Hepatic Metastases from Soft Tissue Sarcoma:A Nationwide Study

Contains fulltext : 209467pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial)

Background: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Methods: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient

New-onset atrial fibrillation after esophagectomy for cancer

Esophagectomy with en-bloc lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is the standard of care for resectable locally advanced esophageal cancer. Postoperative complications may have a significant impact on the duration of hospital stay and quality of life. Early recognition and treatment of complications may reduce failure to rescue rates and improve postoperative outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) after esophagectomy for cancer is frequently observed, and may be related to other postoperative complications. AF could function as an early warning sign for other complications in the postoperative course after esophagectomy and may thus be of clinical value. This review discusses the pathophysiology and possible risk factors of AF, the association between AF and other postoperative complications, and the influence of AF on postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer. Furthermore, clinical recommendations for the management of new-onset AF after esophagectomy for cancer are provided

Reducing pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for cancer

The cornerstone of curative care for esophageal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy with a radical lymphadenectomy. An esophagectomy is a major and complex surgical procedure and is often followed by postoperative morbidity, especially pulmonary complications. These complications may lead to an increase in hospital stay, intensive care unit admission rate and mortality. Therefore, perioperative strategies to reduce these complications have been investigated and implemented in clinical practice. In this review we highlight the influence of minimally invasive surgery, postoperative pain management, early identification of complications and the usage of uniform definitions on (pulmonary) complications after esophagectomy. Finally, we will discuss some future perspectives

Comparison of costs and short-term clinical outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic heller myotomy

OBJECTIVE: Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) has seen increasing application and comparisons to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). The aim of the present study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes, and costs between the two procedures at a single institution. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients documented in a prospective IRB approved database from January 2014 to December 2017 were included. Perioperative data, pre-operative and 3-month postoperative Eckardt Scores, and cost data were compared. RESULTS: Median hospital stay was comparable between POEM and LHM (1 day each). Complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo 1, 2) and rare in both groups. Median Eckardt scores improved significantly after POEM (5 to 0) and LHM (5 to 0). Normalized median costs were comparable: 14 201 USD (POEM) vs. 13 328 USD (LHM) p = 0.45. CONCLUSIONS: POEM demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes and costs to LHM. Long-term issues related to GERD require ongoing assessment in POEM patients. SUMMARY: In patients with achalasia, extended myotomy of the lower esophageal sphincter offers excellent palliation of symptoms. In the last decades, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the gold standard. Over the past decade, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has seen wide application in specialized centers worldwide. In our patient cohort, we demonstrate, that POEM can be introduced with similar outcomes and costs compared to LHM

Internal and External Validation of a multivariable Model to Define Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is an important complication following esophagectomy; however, a wide range of pneumonia incidence is reported. The lack of one generally accepted definition prevents valid inter-study comparisons. We aimed to simplify and validate an existing scoring model to define pneumonia following esophagectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Utrecht Pneumonia Score, comprising of pulmonary radiography findings, leucocyte count, and temperature, was simplified and internally validated using bootstrapping in the dataset (n = 185) in which it was developed. Subsequently, the intercept and (shrunk) coefficients of the developed multivariable logistic regression model were applied to an external dataset (n = 201) RESULTS: In the revised Uniform Pneumonia Score, points are assigned based on the temperature, the leucocyte, and the findings of pulmonary radiography. The model discrimination was excellent in the internal validation set and in the external validation set (C-statistics 0.93 and 0.91, respectively); furthermore, the model calibrated well in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: The revised Uniform Pneumonia Score (rUPS) can serve as a means to define post-esophagectomy pneumonia. Utilization of a uniform definition for pneumonia will improve inter-study comparability and improve the evaluations of new therapeutic strategies to reduce the pneumonia incidence

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial)

BACKGROUND: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. METHODS: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02248519

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial)

BACKGROUND: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. METHODS: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02248519