Aim To assess the added value of Near InfraRed Fluorescence (NIRF) imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods This international multicentre randomized controlled trial included... Show moreAim To assess the added value of Near InfraRed Fluorescence (NIRF) imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods This international multicentre randomized controlled trial included participants with an indication for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Participants were randomised into a NIRF imaging assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (NIRF-LC) group and a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) group. Primary end point was time to "Critical View of Safety' (CVS). The follow-up period of this study was 90 postoperative days. An expert panel analysed the video recordings after surgery to confirm designated surgical time points.Results A total of 294 patients were included, of which 143 were randomized in the NIRF-LC and 151 in the CLC group. Baseline characteristics were equally distributed. Time to CVS was on average 19 min and 14 s for the NIRF-LC group and 23 min and 9 s for the CLC group (p 0.032). Time to identification of the CD was 6 min and 47 s and 13 min for NIRF-LC and CLC respectively (p < 0.001). Transition of the CD in the gallbladder was identified after an average of 9 min and 39 s with NIRF-LC, compared to 18 min and 7 s with CLC (p < 0.001). No difference in postoperative length of hospital stay nor occurrence of postoperative complications was found. ICG related complications were limited to one patient who developed a rash after injection of ICG.Conclusion Use of NIRF imaging in laparoscopic cholecystectomy provides earlier identification of relevant extrahepatic biliary anatomy: earlier achievement of CVS, cystic duct visualisation and visualisation of both cystic duct and cystic artery transition into the gallbladder. Show less
Introduction: This study aims to develop a robust preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage (AL) after surgical resection for rectal cancer, based on established risk factors and with... Show moreIntroduction: This study aims to develop a robust preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage (AL) after surgical resection for rectal cancer, based on established risk factors and with the power of a large prospective nation-wide population-based study cohort. Materials and methods: A development cohort was formed by using the DCRA (Dutch ColoRectal Audit), a mandatory population-based repository of all patients who undergo colorectal cancer resection in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older were included who underwent surgical resection for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis (with or without deviating ileostomy) between 2011 and 2019. Anastomotic leakage was defined as clinically relevant leakage requiring reintervention. Multivariable logistic regression was used to build a prediction model and cross-validation was used to validate the model. Results: A total of 13.175 patients were included for analysis. AL was diagnosed in 1319 patients (10%). A deviating stoma was constructed in 6853 patients (52%). The following variables were identified as significant risk factors and included in the prediction model: gender, age, BMI, ASA classification, neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, cT stage, distance of the tumor from anal verge, and deviating ileos-tomy. The model had a concordance-index of 0.664, which remained 0.658 after cross-validation. In addition, a nomogram was developed. Conclusion: The present study generated a discriminative prediction model based on preoperatively available variables. The proposed score can be used for patient counselling and risk-stratification before undergoing rectal resection for cancer. (c) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Nazari, T.; Bogomolova, K.; Ridderbos, M.; Dankbaar, M.E.W.; Merrienboer, J.J.G. van; Lange, J.F.; ... ; Hage, J.A. van der 2021
Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective... Show moreBackground: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating scale (performance score) and hand-motion analysis (time and path length). Results: Mean improvement in performance score was not significantly different between the OCHRA and OSATS feedback groups (P = .100). However, mean improvement in time (371.0 +/- 223.4 vs 274.6 +/- 341.6; P = .027) and path length (53.5 +/- 42.4 vs 34.7 +/- 39.0; P = .046) was significantly greater in the OCHRA feedback group. When stratified by mental rotation test scores, the greater improvement in time (P = .032) and path length (P = .053) was observed only among individuals with low visual-spatial abilities. Conclusion: A task-specific (OCHRA) feedback is more effective in improving surgical skills in terms of time and path length in novices compared to a global rating scale (OSATS). The effects of a task-specific feedback are present mostly in individuals with lower visual-spatial abilities. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Background: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is... Show moreBackground: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS.Methods: Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1: 2 propensity score matching.Results: Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7.7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11-4 and 13.6 per cent (P= 0-457), disease-free survival rates were 58-8 and 52.6 per cent (P= 0-175), and overall survival rates were 74-0 and 68-3 per cent (P= 0.231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23.9 versus 45.3 per cent; P < 0-001), especially in elderly patients (29.0 versus 57.9 per cent; P < 0-001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11.0 per cent (P= 0.432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59.6 per cent (P= 0-717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75.1 per cent (P= 0.529), respectively.Conclusion: Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients. Show less
Background. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic... Show moreBackground. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on timing of surgery, and, second, to evaluate the impact of timing of surgery after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on short- and long-term outcomes.Methods. Patients were selected from a collaborative rectal cancer research project including 71 Dutch centres, and were subdivided into two groups according to time interval from the start of preoperative CRT to surgery (< 14 and ae14 weeks).Results. From 2095 registered patients, 475 patients received preoperative CRT. MRI restaging was performed in 79.4% of patients, with a median CRT-MRI interval of 10 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 8-11) and a median MRI-surgery interval of 4 weeks (IQR 2-5). The CRT-surgery interval groups consisted of 224 (< 14 weeks) and 251 patients (>= 14 weeks), and the long-interval group included a higher proportion of cT4 stage and multivisceral resection patients. Pathological complete response rate (n = 34 [15.2%] vs. n = 47 [18.7%], p = 0.305) and CRM involvement (9.7% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.145) did not significantly differ. Thirty-day surgical complications were similar (20.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.943), however no significant differences were found for local and distant recurrence rates, disease-free survival, and overall survival.Conclusions. These real-life data, reflecting routine daily practice in The Netherlands, showed substantial variability in the use and timing of restaging MRI after preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, as well as time interval to surgery. Surgery before or after 14 weeks from the start of CRT resulted in similar short- and long-term outcomes. Show less
Aim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment... Show moreAim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment with published landmark randomized controlled trials as a benchmark.Method In this collaborative research project, the dataset of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit was extended with additional treatment and long-term outcome data. All registered patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer in 2011 were eligible. Baseline characteristics and outcome were evaluated against the results of the Dutch TME trial and the COLOR II trial from which the original datasets were obtained.Results A total of 71 hospitals participated, and data were completed for 2102 out of the potential 2633 patients (79.8%). Median follow-up was 41 (interquartile range 25-47) months. Overall circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was 9.3% in the Snapshot cohort and 18.5% in the Dutch TME trial. CRM positivity after laparoscopic resection was 7.8% in the Snapshot and 9.5% in the COLOR II trial. Three-year overall local recurrence rate in the Snapshot was 5.9%, with a disease-free survival of 67.1% and overall survival of 79.5%. Benchmarking with the randomized controlled trials revealed an overall favourable long-term outcome of the Snapshot cohort.Conclusion This study showed that current rectal cancer care in a large unselected Dutch population is of high quality, with less positive CRM since the TME trial and oncologically safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery after the COLOR II trial. Show less
