Purpose:Simple bone cysts are among the most prevalent benign cystic tumor-like lesions in children. Proximal femoral simple bone cysts may require specific treatment because of increased fracture... Show morePurpose:Simple bone cysts are among the most prevalent benign cystic tumor-like lesions in children. Proximal femoral simple bone cysts may require specific treatment because of increased fracture risk. With limited literature available on this specific localization, consensus regarding optimal treatment is lacking. We present a large international multicenter retrospective cohort study on proximal femoral simple bone cysts.Methods:All consecutive pediatric patients with proximal femoral simple bone cyst from 10 tertiary referral centers for musculoskeletal oncology were included (2000–2021). Demographics, primary treatment, complications, and re-operations were evaluated. Primary outcomes were time until full weight-bearing and failure-free survival.Results:Overall, 74 simple bone cyst patients were included (median age 9 years (range = 2–16), 56 (76%) male). Median follow-up was 2.9 years (range = 0.5–21). Index procedure was watchful waiting (n = 6), percutaneous procedure (n = 12), open procedure (n = 50), or osteosynthesis alone (n = 6). Median time until full weight-bearing was 8 weeks (95% confidence interval = 0.1–15.9) for watchful waiting, 9.5 (95% confidence interval = 3.7–15.3) for percutaneous procedure, 11 (95% confidence interval = −0.7 to 13.7) for open procedure, and 6.5 (95% confidence interval = 5.9–16.1) for osteosynthesis alone (p = 0.58). Failure rates were 33%, 58%, 29%, and 0%, respectively (p = 0.069). Overall failure-free survival at 1, 2, and 5 years was 77.8% (95% confidence interval = 68.2–87.4), 69.5% (95% confidence interval = 58.5–80.5), and 62.0% (95% confidence interval = 47.9–76.1), respectively.Conclusion:A preferred treatment for proximal femoral simple bone cysts remains unclear, with comparable failure rates and times until full weight-bearing. Watchful waiting may be successful in certain cases. If not feasible, osteosynthesis alone can be considered. Treatment goals should be cyst control, minimizing complications and swift return to normal activities. Therefore, an individualized balance should be made between undertreatment, with potentially higher complication risks versus overtreatment, resulting in possible larger interventions and accompanying complications.Level of evidence:Level IV, retrospective multicentre study Show less
Background: The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has led to an increased emphasis on reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate... Show moreBackground: The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has led to an increased emphasis on reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance achieved with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) as compared with conventional AVR. Methods: Patients who underwent surgical AVR with the Avalus bioprosthesis, as part of a prospective multicenter non-randomized trial, were included in this analysis. Surgical approach was left to the discretion of the surgeons. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between MI-AVR and conventional AVR groups in the entire cohort ( n = 1077) and in an isolated AVR subcohort ( n = 528). Propensity score adjustment was performed to estimate the effect of MI-AVR on adverse events. Results: Patients treated with MI-AVR were younger, had lower STS scores, and underwent concomitant procedures less often. Valve size implanted was comparable between the groups. MI-AVR was associated with longer procedural times in the isolated AVR subcohort. Postprocedural hemodynamic performance was comparable. There were no significant differences between MI-AVR and conventional AVR in early and 3-year all-cause mortality, thromboembolism, reintervention, or a composite of those endpoints within either the entire cohort or the isolated AVR subcohort. After propensity score adjustment, there remained no association between MI-AVR and the composite endpoint (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-1.55, p = 0.61). Conclusion: Three-year outcomes after MI-AVR with the Avalus bioprosthetic valve were comparable to conventional AVR. These results provide important insights into the overall ability to reduce the invasiveness of AVR without compromising outcomes. Show less
Background The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has led to an increased emphasis on reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate... Show moreBackground The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has led to an increased emphasis on reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance achieved with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) as compared with conventional AVR.Methods Patients who underwent surgical AVR with the Avalus bioprosthesis, as part of a prospective multicenter non-randomized trial, were included in this analysis. Surgical approach was left to the discretion of the surgeons. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between MI-AVR and conventional AVR groups in the entire cohort (n = 1077) and in an isolated AVR subcohort (n = 528). Propensity score adjustment was performed to estimate the effect of MI-AVR on adverse events.Results Patients treated with MI-AVR were younger, had lower STS scores, and underwent concomitant procedures less often. Valve size implanted was comparable between the groups. MI-AVR was associated with longer procedural times in the isolated AVR subcohort. Postprocedural hemodynamic performance was comparable. There were no significant differences between MI-AVR and conventional AVR in early and 3-year all-cause mortality, thromboembolism, reintervention, or a composite of those endpoints within either the entire cohort or the isolated AVR subcohort. After propensity score adjustment, there remained no association between MI-AVR and the composite endpoint (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.47–1.55, p = 0.61).Conclusion Three-year outcomes after MI-AVR with the Avalus bioprosthetic valve were comparable to conventional AVR. These results provide important insights into the overall ability to reduce the invasiveness of AVR without compromising outcomes. Show less
Klompmaker, S.; Hilst, J. van; Wellner, U.F.; Busch, O.R.; Coratti, A.; D'Hondt, M.; ... ; European Consortium Minimally Inva 2020
Objective: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European... Show moreObjective: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. Background: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. Methods: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing >= 10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing >= 10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo >= 3). Results: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%,P= 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%,P= 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%,P= 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%,P= 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days,P> 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%,P< 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95,P< 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%,P< 0.001). Conclusions: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing >= 10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed. Show less
