27 research outputs found

    Lymphedema and Post-Operative Complications after Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy versus Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial Carcinomas-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    No full text
    Background: Lymph node dissection (LND) is recommended as staging procedure in presumed low stage endometrial cancer. LND is associated with risk of lower-extremity lymphedema and post-operative complications. The sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure has been shown to have high diagnostic accuracy, but its effects on complication risk has been little studied. This systematic review compares the risk of lower-extremity lymphedema and post-operative complications in SLN versus LND in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library. Results: Seven retrospective and prospective studies (total n = 3046 patients) were included. Only three studies reported the odds ratio of lower-extremity lymphedema after SLN compared to LND, which was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.37; p = 0.067), 0.07 (95% CI 0.00-1.21; p = 0.007) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37-0.80; p = 0.002) in these studies. The pooled odds ratio of any post-operative complications after SLN versus LND was 0.52 (95% CI 0.36-0.73; I-2 = 48%; p < 0.001). For severe post-operative complications the pooled odds ratio was 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.96; I-2 = 0%; p = 0.04). Conclusions: There are strong indications that SLN results in a lower incidence of lower-extremity lymphedema and less often severe post-operative complications compared to LND. In spite of the paucity and heterogeneity of studies, direction of results was similar in all studies, supporting the aforementioned conclusion. These results support the increasing uptake of SLN procedures in endometrial cancer

    Diffusion of Enhanced Recovery principles in gynecologic oncology surgery: Is active implementation still necessary?

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: Spontaneous diffusion of the evidence-based Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program from an early adopter department (colorectal surgery) to other closely related departments (gynecologic surgery) within the same hospital could be expected. Given this diffusion hypothesis, this quality improvement study examines the value of active implementation of ERAS in addition to spontaneous diffusion. METHODS: A nonrandomized, pre-post intervention study was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital. Prospective data of consecutive patients who underwent abdominal surgery between March, 2010 and March, 2011 for gynecologic malignancies were collected and compared with those of a historical cohort of patients treated before the structured implementation of ERAS by an expert team. Outcomes were length of hospital stay, length of functional recovery, and compliance to protocol care elements. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients treated after structured implementation of ERAS were compared with 38 patients included in the historical cohort. Most women had surgery for ovarian or endometrial cancer (48% and 37% respectively). Postoperative care mostly lacked ERAS elements and needed to be actively implemented. With structured implementation, a reduced time to functional recovery (median 3 versus 6days, p<0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (5 versus 7days, p<0.001) were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: After several years of practicing ERAS in colorectal surgery, spontaneous spread of ERAS principles to gynecologic oncology surgery occurred partially. The results of this study underscore the need for a structured and supported pro-active process to implement the ERAS program in a complete and successful way

    Case-mix adjustment to compare hospital performances regarding complications after cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a nationwide population-based study.

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: Complication rates after cytoreductive surgery are important quality indicators for hospitals that treat patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Case-mix factors are patient and tumor characteristics that may influence hospital outcomes such as the complication rates. Currently, no case-mix adjustment model exists for complications after cytoreductive surgery; therefore, it is unclear whether hospitals are being compared correctly. This study aims to develop the first case-mix adjustment model for complications after surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer, enabling an accurate comparison between hospitals. METHODS: This population-based study included all patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer registered in the Netherlands in 2017-2019. Case-mix variables were identified and assessed using logistic regressions. The primary outcome was the composite outcome measure 'complicated course'. Patients had a complicated course when at least one of the following criteria were met: (1) any complication combined with a prolonged length of hospital stay; (2) complication requiring reintervention; (3) any complication with a prolonged length of stay in the intensive care unit; or (4) 30-day mortality or in-hospital mortality during admission following surgery. Inter-hospital variation was analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions and visualized using funnel plots. RESULTS: A total of 1822 patients were included, of which 10.7% (n=195) had a complicated course. Comorbidity and tumor stage had a significant impact on complicated course rates in multivariable logistic regression. Inter-hospital variation was not significant for case-mix factors. Complicated course rates ranged between 2.2% and 29.1%, and case-mix adjusted observed/expected ratios ranged from 0.20 to 2.67 between hospitals. Three hospitals performed outside the confidence intervals for complicated course rates. These hospitals remained outliers after case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSION: There is variation between hospitals regarding complicated course rates after cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer in the Netherlands. While comorbidity and tumor stage significantly affected the complicated course rates, adjusting for case-mix factors did not significantly affect hospital outcomes. The limited impact of case-mix adjustment could be a result of the Dutch centralized healthcare model
    corecore