Purpose Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a dreaded complication after colorectal surgery. Preoperatively identifying high-risk patients can help to reduce the incidence of this complication. For this... Show morePurpose Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a dreaded complication after colorectal surgery. Preoperatively identifying high-risk patients can help to reduce the incidence of this complication. For this reason, AL risk nomograms have been developed. The objective of this study was to test the AL risk nomogram developed by Frasson, et al. for validity and to identify risk-factors for AL. Methods From the international multi-center LekCheck study database, patients who underwent colonic surgery with the formation of an anastomosis were included. Data were prospectively collected between 2016 and 2019 at 14 hospitals. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (AUROC) were performed. Results A total of 643 patients were included. The median age was 70 years and 51% were male. The majority underwent surgery for malignancies (80.7%). The overall AL rate was 9.2%. The risk nomogram was not predictive for AL in the population tested (AUROC 0.572). Low preoperative haemoglobin (p = 0.006), intraoperative hypothermia (p = 0.02), contamination of the operative field (p = 0.004), and use of epidural analgesia (p = 0.02) were independent risk-factors for AL. Conclusion The AL risk nomogram could not be validated using the international LekCheck study database. In the future, intraoperative predictive factors for AL, as identified in this study, should also be included in AL risk predictors. 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: 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
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
Borstlap, W.A.A.; Deijen, C.L.; Dulk, M. den; Bonjer, H.J.; Velde, C.J. van de; Bemelman, W.A.; ... ; Dutch Snapshot Res Grp 2017
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
Snoeren, N.; Huiskens, J.; Rijken, A.M.; Hillegersberg, R. van; Erkel, A.R. van; Slooter, G.D.; ... ; Gulik, T.M. van 2011
