Search

Your search keyword '"M W, Büchler"' showing total 8 results
Start Over Author "M W, Büchler" Publication Year Range Last 3 years
8 results on '"M W, Büchler"'

1. Learning Curves in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery

Author

P. C. Müller, MD, C. Kuemmerli, MD, A. Cizmic, MD, S. Sinz, MD, P. Probst, MD, MSc, M. de Santibanes, MD, PhD, S. V. Shrikhande, MD, C. Tschuor, MD, PhD, M. Loos, MD, A. Mehrabi, MD, K. Z’graggen, MD, B. P. Müller-Stich, MD, T. Hackert, MD, M. W. Büchler, MD, and F. Nickel, MD, MME

Subjects
Surgery, RD1-811
Abstract

Objective:. To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). Background:. Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized. Methods:. A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases. Results:. Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20–50) for open PD, 39 (11–60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8–100) for robotic PD (P = 0.521), 16 (3–17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5–37) for robotic DP (P = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time –15%, blood loss –29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications –46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula –48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001). Conclusions:. This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

F. Pianka, A. Werba, R. Klotz, F. Schuh, E. Kalkum, P. Probst, A. Ramouz, E. Khajeh, M. W. Büchler, and J. C. Harnoss

Subjects
Surgery
Abstract

Background Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations. Objectives The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies. Methods Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Results Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34–1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72–3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72–3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay. Conclusions We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.

Published
2022

6. Dragon 1 Protocol Manuscript

Author

R. Korenblik, B. Olij, L. A. Aldrighetti, M. Abu Hilal, M. Ahle, B. Arslan, L. J. van Baardewijk, I. Baclija, C. Bent, C. L. Bertrand, B. Björnsson, M. T. de Boer, S. W. de Boer, R. P. H. Bokkers, I. H. M. Borel Rinkes, S. Breitenstein, R. C. G. Bruijnen, P. Bruners, M. W. Büchler, J. C. Camacho, A. Cappelli, U. Carling, B. K. Y. Chan, D. H. Chang, J. choi, J. Codina Font, M. Crawford, D. Croagh, E. Cugat, R. Davis, D. W. De Boo, F. De Cobelli, J. F. De Wispelaere, O. M. van Delden, M. Delle, O. Detry, R. Díaz-Nieto, A. Dili, J. I. Erdmann, O. Fisher, C. Fondevila, Å. Fretland, F. Garcia Borobia, A. Gelabert, L. Gérard, F. Giuliante, P. D. Gobardhan, F. Gómez, T. Grünberger, D. J. Grünhagen, J. Guitart, J. Hagendoorn, J. Heil, D. Heise, E. Herrero, G. F. Hess, M. H. Hoffmann, R. Iezzi, F. Imani, J. Nguyen, E. Jovine, J. C. Kalff, G. Kazemier, T. P. Kingham, J. Kleeff, O. Kollmar, W. K. G. Leclercq, S. Lopez Ben, V. Lucidi, A. MacDonald, D. C. Madoff, S. Manekeller, G. Martel, A. Mehrabi, H. Mehrzad, M. R. Meijerink, K. Menon, P. Metrakos, C. Meyer, A. Moelker, S. Modi, N. Montanari, J. Navines, U. P. Neumann, P. Peddu, J. N. Primrose, X. Qu, D. Raptis, F. Ratti, F. Ridouani, C. Rogan, U. Ronellenfitsch, S. Ryan, C. Sallemi, J. Sampere Moragues, P. Sandström, L. Sarriá, A. Schnitzbauer, M. Serenari, A. Serrablo, M. L. J. Smits, E. Sparrelid, E. Spüntrup, G. A. Stavrou, R. P. Sutcliffe, I. Tancredi, J. C. Tasse, V. Udupa, D. Valenti, Y. Fundora, T. J. Vogl, X. Wang, S. A. White, W. A. Wohlgemuth, D. Yu, I. A. J. Zijlstra, C. A. Binkert, M. H. A. Bemelmans, C. van der Leij, E. Schadde, R. M. van Dam, UCL - SSS/IREC/IMAG - Pôle d'imagerie médicale, UCL - SSS/IREC/GAEN - Pôle d'Hépato-gastro-entérologie, UCL - SSS/IREC/MONT - Pôle Mont Godinne, UCL - (MGD) Service de chirurgie, UCL - (MGD) Service de radiologie - résonance magnétique, ​Basic and Translational Research and Imaging Methodology Development in Groningen (BRIDGE), RS: GROW - R2 - Basic and Translational Cancer Biology, Surgery, RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, MUMC+: DA BV Medisch Specialisten Radiologie (9), RS: Carim - B06 Imaging, MUMC+: MA Heelkunde (9), CCA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life, Radiology and nuclear medicine, ACS - Pulmonary hypertension & thrombosis, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, ACS - Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, AGEM - Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, CCA -Cancer Center Amsterdam, CCA - Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, ANS - Cellular & Molecular Mechanisms, ANS - Neuroinfection & -inflammation, ACS - Microcirculation, ANS - Neurovascular Disorders, ANS - Systems & Network Neuroscience, Korenblik, R, Olij, B, Aldrighetti, L A, Hilal, M Abu, Ahle, M, Arslan, B, van Baardewijk, L J, Baclija, I, Bent, C, Bertrand, C L, Björnsson, B, de Boer, M T, de Boer, S W, Bokkers, R P H, Rinkes, I H M Borel, Breitenstein, S, Bruijnen, R C G, Bruners, P, Büchler, M W, Camacho, J C, Cappelli, A, Carling, U, Chan, B K Y, Chang, D H, Choi, J, Font, J Codina, Crawford, M, Croagh, D, Cugat, E, Davis, R, De Boo, D W, De Cobelli, F, De Wispelaere, J F, van Delden, O M, Delle, M, Detry, O, Díaz-Nieto, R, Dili, A, Erdmann, J I, Fisher, O, Fondevila, C, Fretland, Å, Borobia, F Garcia, Gelabert, A, Gérard, L, Giuliante, F, Gobardhan, P D, Gómez, F, Grünberger, T, Grünhagen, D J, Guitart, J, Hagendoorn, J, Heil, J, Heise, D, Herrero, E, Hess, G F, Hoffmann, M H, Iezzi, R, Imani, F, Nguyen, J, Jovine, E, Kalff, J C, Kazemier, G, Kingham, T P, Kleeff, J, Kollmar, O, Leclercq, W K G, Ben, S Lopez, Lucidi, V, Macdonald, A, Madoff, D C, Manekeller, S, Martel, G, Mehrabi, A, Mehrzad, H, Meijerink, M R, Menon, K, Metrakos, P, Meyer, C, Moelker, A, Modi, S, Montanari, N, Navines, J, Neumann, U P, Peddu, P, Primrose, J N, Qu, X, Raptis, D, Ratti, F, Ridouani, F, Rogan, C, Ronellenfitsch, U, Ryan, S, Sallemi, C, Moragues, J Sampere, Sandström, P, Sarriá, L, Schnitzbauer, A, Serenari, M, Serrablo, A, Smits, M L J, Sparrelid, E, Spüntrup, E, Stavrou, G A, Sutcliffe, R P, Tancredi, I, Tasse, J C, Udupa, V, Valenti, D, Fundora, Y, Vogl, T J, Wang, X, White, S A, Wohlgemuth, W A, Yu, D, Zijlstra, I A J, Binkert, C A, Bemelmans, M H A, van der Leij, C, Schadde, E, and van Dam, R M

Subjects
Liver hypertrophy, Portal vein embolization (PVE), Hepatic Veins, Accreditation, MAJOR HEPATECTOMY, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Combined portal- and hepatic vein embolization (PVE, MULTIPLE, Hepatectomy, Humans, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems, Prospective Studies, HEPATOBILIARY SCINTIGRAPHY, Combined portal- and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE), Kardiologi, Portal Vein, Liver Neoplasms, Colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM), Hepatic vein embolization (HVE), HVE), Future liver remnant (FLR), Hypertrophy, Embolization, Therapeutic, 2-STAGE HEPATECTOMY, VENOUS DEPRIVATION, Treatment Outcome, Liver, COMPLETE RESECTION, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Hepatomegaly
Abstract

Study Purpose The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Methods The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection. Results Not applicable. Conclusion DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04272931 (February 17, 2020). Toestingonline.nl: NL71535.068.19 (September 20, 2019).

Published
2022

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results