Transfer validity of laparoscopic knot-tying training on a VR simulator to a realistic environment: A randomized controlled trial

Background Laparoscopic suturing is one of the most difficult tasks in endoscopic surgery, requiring extensive training. The aim of this study was to determine the transfer validity of knot-tying training on a virtual-reality (VR) simulator to a realistic laparoscopic environment. Methods Twenty surgical trainees underwent basic eye-hand coordination training on a VR simulator (SIMENDO, DelltaTech, Delft, the Netherlands) until predefined performance criteria were met. Then, they were randomized into two groups. Group A (the experimental group) received additional training with the knot-tying module on the simulator, during which they had to tie a double laparoscopic knot ten times. Group B (controls) did not receive additional manual training. Within a week the participants tied a double knot in the abdominal cavity of an anaesthetized porcine model. Their performance was captured on digital video and coded. Objective analysis parameters were: time taken to tie the knot and number of predefined errors made. Subjective assessments were also made by two laparoscopic surgeons using a global rating list with a five-point Likert scale. Results Trainees in group A (n = 9) were significantly faster than the controls (n = 10), with a median of 262 versus 374 seconds (p = 0.034). Group A made a significantly lower number of errors than the controls (median of 24 versus 36 errors, p = 0.030). Subjective assessments by the laparoscopic experts did not show any significant differences in economy of movement and erroneous behavior between the two groups. Conclusions Surgical trainees who received knot-tying training on the VR simulator were faster and made fewer errors than the controls. The VR module is a useful tool to train laparoscopic knot-tying. Opportunities arose to improve simulator-based instruction that might enhance future training

Hospital volume and post-operative mortality after resection for gastric cancer

Aims: In low-volume hospitals, expertise in gastric surgery is difficult to maintain because of the decreasing incidence of gastric cancer and the fall of surgery for ulcer disease. We evaluated the prognostic impact of hospital volume on post-operative mortality (POM) in a consecutive series of 1978 patients. Methods: Information on patients undergoing resection for gastric cancer in the period 1987-97 was retrieved from the Rotterdam Cancer Registry. The relationship between hospital volume and POM was analysed by logistic regression, adjusting for other prognostic factors. Results: POM was 7.9% on average but varied between the 22 hospitals from 3.1% to 15.1% (P = 0.15). Hospital volume had no prognostic influence (P = 0.74). Prognostic factors were age (70-79 years odds ratio (OR) = 3.8, 80 + years OR = 6.0), sex (male OR = 1.7), stage (IV OR = 1.8) and (partial) gastrectomy for cardia cancers (OR = 2.0). Conclusion: Variation in POM between hospitals was large but not related to hospital volume. For cardia cancer, POM rates were lower after oesophagogastrectonny. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision are not compromised by prior transanal minimally invasive surgery

AIM: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is used increasingly often as an organ-preserving treatment for early rectal cancer. If final pathology reveals unfavourable histological prognostic features, completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is recommended. This study is the first to investigate the results of cTME after TAMIS. METHOD: Data were retrieved from the prospective database of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital. Completion TME patients were case matched with a control group of patients undergoing primary TME (pTME). Primary and secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2017, 20 patients underwent cTME and were compared with 40 patients undergoing pTME. There were no significant differences in operating time (238 min vs 226 min, P = 0.53), blood loss (137 ml vs. 158 ml, P = 0.88) or complications (45% vs 55%, P = 0.07) between both groups. There was no 90-day mortality in the cTME group. The mesorectal fascia was incomplete in three patients (15%) in the cTME group compared with no breaches in the pTME group (P = 0.083). There were no local recurrences in either group. In three patients (15%), distant metastases were detected after cTME compared with one patient (2.5%) in the pTME group (P = 0.069). After cTME patients had a 1- and 5-year disease-free survival of 85% compared with 97.5% for the pTME group (P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Completion TME surgery after TAMIS is not associated with increased peri- or postoperative morbidity or mortality compared with pTME surgery. After cTME surgery patients have a similar disease-free and overall survival when compared with patients undergoing pTME.status: publishe

Centralization of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Does It Improve Clinical Outcome?

The volume-outcome relationship for complex surgical procedures has been extensively studied. Most studies are based on administrative data and use in-hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure. It is still unknown if concentration of these procedures leads to improvement of clinical outcome. The aim of our study was to audit the process and effect of centralizing oesophageal resections for cancer by using detailed clinical data. From January 1990 until December 2004, 555 esophagectomies for cancer were performed in 11 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center West (CCCW); 342 patients were operated on before and 213 patients after the introduction of a centralization project. In this project patients were referred to the hospitals which showed superior outcomes in a regional audit. In this audit patient, tumor, and operative details as well as clinical outcome were compared between hospitals. The outcome of both cohorts, patients operated on before and after the start of the project, were evaluated. Despite the more severe comorbidity of the patient group, outcome improved after centralizing esophageal resections. Along with a reduction in postoperative morbidity and length of stay, mortality fell from 12% to 4% and survival improved significantly (P = 0.001). The hospitals with the highest procedural volume showed the biggest improvement in outcome. Volume is an important determinant of quality of care in esophageal cancer surgery. Referral of patients with esophageal cancer to surgical units with adequate experience and superior outcomes (outcome-based referral) improves quality of care

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery. A prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

Aim Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a meta-analysis of all available prospective data. Methods This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grades III-V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery for malignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49-2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.status: publishe

Fixation using alternative implants for the treatment of hip fractures (FAITH): design and rationale for a multi-centre randomized trial comparing sliding hip screws and cancellous screws on revision surgery rates and quality of life in the treatment of femoral neck fractures

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a common type of fragility fracture that afflict 293,000 Americans (over 5,000 per week) and 35,000 Canadians (over 670 per week) annually. Despite the large population impact the optimal fixation technique for low energy femoral neck fractures remains controversial. The primary objective of the FAITH study is to assess the impact of cancellous screw fixation versus sliding hip screws on rates of revision surgery at 24 months in individuals with femoral neck fractures. The secondary objective is to determine the impact on health-related quality of life, functional outcomes, health state utilities, fracture healing, mortality and fracture-related adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: FAITH is a multi-centre, multi-national randomized controlled trial utilizing minimization to determine patient allocation. Surgeons in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia will recruit a total of at least 1,000 patients with low-energy femoral neck fractures. Using central randomization, patients will be allocated to receive surgical treatment with cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Patient outcomes will be assessed at one week (baseline), 10 weeks, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post initial fixation. We will independently adjudicate revision surgery and complications within 24 months of the initial fixation. Outcome analysis will be performed using a Cox proportional hazards model and likelihood ratio test. DISCUSSION: This study represents major international efforts to definitively resolve the treatment of low-energy femoral neck fractures. This trial will not only change current Orthopaedic practice, but will also set a benchmark for the conduct of future Orthopaedic trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The FAITH trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT00761813)