Background Laparoscopic gastrectomy could reduce pain and opioid consumption, compared to open gastrectomy. However, it is difficult to judge the clinical relevance of this reduction, since these... Show moreBackground Laparoscopic gastrectomy could reduce pain and opioid consumption, compared to open gastrectomy. However, it is difficult to judge the clinical relevance of this reduction, since these outcomes are reported in few randomized trials and in limited detail.Methods This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial compared laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). Postoperative pain was analyzed by opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME, mg/day) at postoperative day (POD) 1-5, WHO analgesic steps, and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS, 0-10) at POD 1-10 and discharge. Regression and mixed model analyses were performed, with and without correction for epidural analgesia.Results Between 2015 and 2018, 115 patients in the laparoscopic group and 110 in the open group underwent surgery. Some 16 patients (14%) in the laparoscopic group and 73 patients (66%) in the open group received epidural analgesia. At POD 1-3, mean opioid consumption was 131, 118, and 53 mg OME lower in the laparoscopic group, compared to the open group, respectively (all p < 0.001). After correcting for epidural analgesia, these differences remained significant at POD 1-2 (47 mg OME, p = 0.002 and 69 mg OME, p < 0.001, respectively). At discharge, 27% of patients in the laparoscopic group and 43% patients in the open group used oral opioids (p = 0.006). Mean highest daily pain scores were between 2 and 4 at all PODs, < 2 at discharge, and did not relevantly differ between treatment arms.Conclusion In this multicenter randomized trial, postoperative pain was comparable between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. After laparoscopic gastrectomy, this was generally achieved without epidural analgesia and with fewer opioids. Show less
Objective:To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning... Show moreObjective:To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve. Background:RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking. Methods:Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss. Results:Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade >= III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures. Conclusions:The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value. Show less
Veen, A. van der; Meulen, M.P. van der; Seesing, M.F.J.; Brenkman, H.J.F.; Haverkamp, L.; Luyer, M.D.P.; ... ; Laparoscopic Vs Open Gastrectomy G 2022
IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a... Show moreIMPORTANCE Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. RESULTS Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be euro8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, euro7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, euro6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and euro5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were euro26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and euro25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, euro752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy. Show less
Background: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume... Show moreBackground: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands.Method: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups.Results: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P<0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P=0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P=0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P<0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P<0.004).Conclusion: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group. Show less
Background. During the COVID-19 pandemic the question arises if laparoscopy, as an aerosol forming procedure, poses a potential risk for viral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to healthcare workers.... Show moreBackground. During the COVID-19 pandemic the question arises if laparoscopy, as an aerosol forming procedure, poses a potential risk for viral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to healthcare workers. Methods. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE. Articles reporting information regarding COVID-19 or other relevant viruses and laparoscopy, surgical smoke, aerosols and viral transmission were included. Results. Although aerosols produced during laparoscopy do not originate from the respiratory tract, the main transmission route of SARS-CoV-2, research did show SARS-CoV-2 to be present in other body fluids. The transmission risk via this route is however considered very low. As previous research showed potential viral transmission during laparoscopy for viruses that spread through contaminated body fluids, there might be a potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during laparoscopy, albeit considered very small. Conclusion. Due to the small risk compared to widely known benefits of laparoscopy, there is no reason to replace laparoscopy by laparotomy due to COVID-19 infection. To avoid the potential small risk of viral transmission, additional safety measures are advised. Show less
Young patients are thought to have a more severe disease course and a higher rate of recurrent diverticulitis. However, these understandings are mainly based on studies with important limitations.... Show moreYoung patients are thought to have a more severe disease course and a higher rate of recurrent diverticulitis. However, these understandings are mainly based on studies with important limitations. This review aimed to clarify the true natural history of acute diverticulitis in young patients compared to elderly patients. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched for studies reporting outcomes on disease severity or recurrences in young and elderly patients with a computed tomography-proven diagnosis of acute diverticulitis. Twenty-seven studies were included. The proportion of complicated diverticulitis at presentation (21 studies) was not different for young patients (age cut-off 40-50 years) compared to elderly patients [risk ratio (RR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.50]. The need for emergency surgery (11 studies) or percutaneous abscess drainage (two studies) yielded comparable results for both groups with a RR of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.70-1.24) and 1.65 (95% confidence interval 0.60-4.57), respectively. Crude data on recurrent diverticulitis rates (12 studies) demonstrated a significantly higher RR of 1.47 (95% confidence interval 1.20-1.80) for young patients. Notably, no association between age and recurrent diverticulitis was found in the studies that used survival analyses, taking length of follow-up per age group into account. In conclusion, young patients do not have a more severe course of acute diverticulitis. Published data on the risk of recurrent diverticulitis in young patients are conflicting, but those with the most robust design do not demonstrate an increased risk. Therefore, young patients should not be treated more aggressively nor have a lower threshold for elective surgery just because of their age. Show less
Werf, L.R. van der; Eshuis, W.J.; Draaisma, W.A.; Etten, B. van; Gisbertz, S.S.; Harst, E. van der; ... ; Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Canc 2019
Background Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim... Show moreBackground Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gastrectomies with partial pancreatectomy for gastric cancer.Methods Patients who underwent gastrectomy with or without partial pancreatectomy for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer between 2011 and 2015 were selected from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). Outcomes were resection margin (pR0) and Clavien-Dindo grade >= III postoperative complications and survival. The association between partial pancreatectomy and postoperative complications was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival of patients with partial pancreatectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results Of 1966 patients that underwent gastrectomy, 55 patients (2.8%) underwent en-bloc partial pancreatectomy. A pR0 resection was achieved in 45 of 55 patients (82% versus 85% in the group without additional resection, P = 0.82). Clavien-Dindo grade = III complications occurred in 21 of 55 patients (38% versus 17%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival [95% confidence interval] was 15 [6.8-23.2] months. For patients with and without perioperative systemic therapy, median survival was 20 [12.3-27.7] and 10 [5.7-14.3] months, and for patients with pR0 and pR1 resection, it was 20 [11.8-28.3] and 5 [2.4-7.6] months, respectively.Conclusions Gastrectomy with partial pancreatectomy is not only associated with a pR0 resection rate of 82% but also with increased postoperative morbidity. It should only be performed if a pR0 resection is feasible. Show less
Background: While most of the evidence on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is derived from expert centers, nationwide outcomes remain underreported. This study aimed to evaluate the... Show moreBackground: While most of the evidence on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is derived from expert centers, nationwide outcomes remain underreported. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation and outcome of MILS on a nationwide scale.Methods: Electronic patient files were reviewed in all Dutch liver surgery centers and all patients undergoing MILS between 2011 and 2016 were selected. Operative outcomes were stratified based on extent of the resection and annual MILS volume.Results: Overall, 6951 liver resections were included, with a median annual volume of 50 resections per center. The overall use of MILS was 13% (n = 916), which varied from 3% to 36% (P < 0.001) between centers. The nationwide use of MILS increased from 6% in 2011 to 23% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Outcomes of minor MILS were comparable with international studies (conversion 0- 13%, mortality <1%). In centers which performed >= 20 MILS annually, major MILS was associated with less conversions (14 (11%) versus 41 (30%), P < 0.001), shorter operating time (184 (117- 239) versus 200 (139-308) minutes, P = 0.010), and less overall complications (37 (30%) versus 58 (42%), P = 0.040).Conclusion: The nationwide use of MILS is increasing, although large variation remains between centers. Outcomes of major MILS are better in centers with higher volumes. Show less
