Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer:a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres. METHODS: Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres

Insurance Firms in Process of Industrialization

Background: Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure. Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs. Discussion: The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia

Subpubic cartilaginous cystic lesion presenting as a vulvar mass: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>A subpubic cartilaginous cyst is a rare and innocent defect originating from the symphysis pubis and may present as a vulvar mass and/or chronic abdominal pain. The symphysis pubis is a non-synovial amphiarthrodial joint that forms a fibrocartilaginous union between the two pubic bones and in general lies without mainstream interest, despite its clinical relevance. This case report focuses attention on this joint.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 55-year-old Caucasian woman presented with a painful and rapidly increasing vulvar mass. Imaging techniques revealed a cyst-like structure originating from a degenerated symphysis pubis. The cyst was excised, however, recovery was complicated by a symphysiolysis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A subpubic cartilaginous cyst is a rare cystic lesion originating from the symphysis of the pubic bone which presents as a vulvar mass which might be complicated by symphysiolysis. Several diseases affect the symphysis pubis and result in significant discomfort and disability in patients. The symphysis pubis is therefore clinically important and should not be omitted in the differential diagnosis of a vulvar mass and/or chronic abdominal pain.</p

Oncological outcome of malignant colonic obstruction in the Dutch Stent-In 2 trial

Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Cost-effectiveness of the SEN-concept: Specialized Emergency Nurses (SEN) treating ankle/foot injuries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Emergency Departments (EDs) are confronted with progressive overcrowding. As a consequence, the workload for ED physicians increases and waiting times go up with the risk of unnecessary complications and patient dissatisfaction. To cope with these problems, Specialized Emergency Nurses (SENs), regular ED-nurses receiving a short, injury-specific course, were trained to assess and treat minor injuries according to a specific protocol.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing House Officers (HOs) and SENs in their assessment of ankle and foot injuries. Cost prices were established for all parts of healthcare utilization involved. Total costs of health care utilization were computed per patient in both groups. Cost-effectiveness was investigated by comparing the difference in total cost between groups with the difference in sensitivity and specificity between groups in diagnosing fractures and severe sprains. Finally, cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and presented on a cost-effectiveness plane.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No significant differences were seen between treatment groups for any of the health care resources assessed. However, the waiting times for both first assessment by a treatment officer and time spent waiting between hearing the diagnosis and final treatment were significantly longer in the HO group. There was no statistically significant difference in costs between groups. The total costs were € 186 (SD € 623) for patients in the SEN group and € 153 (SD € 529) for patients in the HO group. The difference in total costs was € 33 (95% CI: – € 84 to € 155). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 27 for a reduction of one missed diagnosis and € 18 for a reduction of one false negative.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Considering the benefits of the SEN-concept in terms of decreased workload for the ED physicians, increased patient satisfaction and decreased waiting times, SENs appear to be a useful solution to the problem of ED crowding.</p

A multicenter randomized clinical trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies with or without antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis (DIABOLO trial)

Background. Conservative treatment of uncomplicated or mild diverticulitis usually includes antibiotic therapy. It is, however, uncertain whether patients with acute diverticulitis indeed benefit from antibiotics. In most guidelines issued by professional organizations antibiotics are considered mandatory in the treatment of mild diverticulitis. This advice lacks evidence and is merely based on experts' opinion. Adverse effects of the use of antibiotics are well known, including allergic reactions, development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and other side-effects. Methods. A randomized multicenter pragmatic clinical trial comparin