Search

Your search keyword '"Michalda S. Dunker"' showing total 5 results
Start Over Author "Michalda S. Dunker" Publication Year Range Last 50 years
5 results on '"Michalda S. Dunker"'

1. Optimised treatment of patients with enlarged lateral lymph nodes in rectal cancer: protocol of an international, multicentre, prospective registration study after extensive multidisciplinary training (LaNoReC)

Author

Susan Van Dieren, Joost Nederend, Pieter J Tanis, Roel Hompes, Klaas Havenga, Melissa W Taggart, Robert Riedl, Michail Doukas, Evert-Jan G. Boerma, Marinke Westerterp, Corrie A M Marijnen, Jaap Stoker, Andrew Ruszkiewicz, Tsuyoshi Konishi, Jarno Melenhorst, Karin Muller, Krista Gerbrands, Michael Croft, Michael Wilks, Johanne G. Bloemen, Peter A. Neijenhuis, Koen C.M.J. Peeters, Miranda Kusters, Martijn Intven, Jan Peringa, Maria Verseveld, Eline G M van Geffen, Tania C Sluckin, Sanne-Marije J A Hazen, Karin Horsthuis, Geerard Beets, Marilyne M Lange, Regina G H Beets-Tan, Marc R. W. Engelbrecht, Elisabeth D. Geijsen, Philip Meijnen, Jurriaan B. Tuynman, Ingrid M. Bruijnzeel, Bas Lamme, Femke M. Alberts, Rogier M. P. H. Crolla, Joanne Verdult, Johan H. Wijsman, Charlotte S. van Kessel, Erik Jan Mulder, Jan Binne Hulshoff, Ivan M. Cherepanin, Hans F. J. Fabry, G. Y. Mireille, Frank J. M. Kemper, Fatih Polat, Jacobus W. A. Burger, Jeltsje S. Cnossen, Shira H. de Bie, Robbert J. I. Bosker, Aaldert K. Talsma, Leonora S. F. Boogerd, Marc J. P. M. Govaert, Merel M. Scheurkogel, Imogeen E. Antonisse, Joost Rothbarth, Marianne de Vries, Marcel A. H. Ribbert, Anthony W. H. van de Ven, Susan ter Borg, Jennifer W. Bradshaw, Heleen M. Ceha, Fleur I. de Korte, Andreas W. K. S. Marinelli, Tjeerd S. Aukema, Liselotte W. van Bockel, Aukje A. J. M. van Tilborg, Tom Rozema, Amarins Brandsma, Stefan Hoogendoorn, Saskia R. Offerman, Hanneke Vos, Henderik L. van Westreenen, Jeroen W. A. Leijtens, Fabian A. Holman, Laura A. Velema, L Els, van Persijn van Meerten, Frans C. H. Bakers, Iryna Samarska, Nina Šefčovičová, Maaike Berbée, Bastiaan B. Pultrum, Dennis B. Rouw, Matthew Albert, L. René Arensman, Hanneke Basart, Esther C. J. Consten, Bart C.T. van de Laar, Inne Somers, Paul M. Verheijen, Thomas A. Fassaert, Christiaan Hoff, Eino B. van Duyn, Ellen M. Hendriksen, Hugo A.J. Gielkens, Arend G. J. Aalbers, Brechtje A. Grotenhuis, Michalda S. Dunker, Anne M. van Geel, Christof Meischl, W. Hermien Schreurs, Patty H. Spruit, Michael F. Gerhards, Thomas M. Karsten, Eveline J.T. Krul, Sebastiaan van Koeverden, Andre J. A. Bremers, Heidi Rütten, Johannes H. W. de Wilt, Mariska den Hartogh, Vera Oppedijk, Jan Willem T. Dekker, Debora Eschbach-Zandbergen, Daphne Roos, Arjan van Tilburg, Ernst Jan, Spillenaar Bilgen, Nikki Knijn, Marnix A. J. de Roos, Ilse van Dop, Tracy Fitzsimmons, Hidde M. Kroon, Michael Penniment, Mitchell Raeside, Tarik Sammour, Steven J. Oosterling, Jeroen A. W. Tielbeek, Ronald J. C. L. M. Vuylsteke, Erik J. R. J. van der Hoeven, Anke B. Smits, Anniek H. Boer, Edgar J. B. Furnée, Robbert J. de Haas, Manon N. G. J. A. Braat, Wilhelmina M. U. van Grevenstein, Milan C. Richir, Patricia J. A. M. Brouwers, Tilly Leseman, Eric H. J. Belgers, Jasenko Krdzalic, and Roy F. A. Vliegen

Subjects
Medicine
Abstract

Introduction Inadequate treatment of enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) in rectal cancer patients is associated with an increased lateral local recurrence (LLR) risk, despite neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. There is a promising role for LLN dissection (LLND) to lower this risk, but this challenging procedure requires appropriate training. This study protocol describes a prospective evaluation of oncological outcomes after standardised treatment based on multidisciplinary training, thereby aiming for a 50% reduction in LLR rate.Methods and analysis A prospective registration study will be opened in hospitals in which the involved multidisciplinary team members (radiologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and pathologists) have received dedicated training to enhance knowledge and awareness of LLNs and in which standardised treatment including LLND has been implemented. Patients with rectal cancer and at least one enlarged LLN (short-axis ≥7.0 mm), or intermediate LLN (short-axis 5.0–6.9 mm) with at least one malignant feature on primary MRI, evaluated by a trained radiologist, are eligible. Patients will undergo neoadjuvant treatment by trained radiation oncologists, followed by TME surgery in combination with a minimally invasive, nerve-sparing LLND performed by trained surgeons. LLND specimens are evaluated by trained pathologists or grossing assistants. The primary outcome is LLR rate 3 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease-free survival, overall survival and quality of life. To demonstrate a significant reduction in LLR rate from 13% (based on historical control data) to 6% after optimised treatment, 200 patients with enlarged LLNs are required.Ethics and dissemination The medical ethics board of the Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre (VUMC), the Netherlands, approved the study on 23 November 2022 (reference: 2021.0524). Participating centres must obtain local approval and participants are required to provide written informed consent. Results obtained from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at conferences.Trail registration number NCT04486131, 24 July 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04486131.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection

Author

Michalda S Dunker, Alexander P. J. Houdijk, Nathalie Bakker, Hieronymus J. Doodeman, and Wilhelmina. H. Schreurs

Subjects
Laparoscopic surgery, medicine.medical_specialty, Rectal Neoplasms, business.industry, Colorectal cancer, medicine.medical_treatment, Rectum, Length of Stay, Vascular surgery, medicine.disease, Surgery, Cardiac surgery, Postoperative Complications, Cardiothoracic surgery, Humans, Medicine, Postoperative outcome, Laparoscopy, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, business, Abdominal surgery, Cohort study
Abstract

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections. Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified. A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS. ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.

Published
2021

3. Compliance with mismatch repair testing in pT1 colorectal cancer diagnosed before the age of 70 years

Author

Berbel L M, Ykema, Iris D, Nagtegaal, Koert, Kuhlmann, Annemarie M, van Berkel, Monique E, van Leerdam, and Michalda S, Dunker

Subjects
Male, Clinical Decision-Making, Middle Aged, Colorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary Nonpolyposis, DNA Mismatch Repair, Immunohistochemistry, Polymerase Chain Reaction, DNA Repair Enzymes, Predictive Value of Tests, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Biomarkers, Tumor, Humans, Female, Microsatellite Instability, Guideline Adherence, Registries, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Early Detection of Cancer, Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Netherlands, Retrospective Studies
Abstract

Mismatch repair (MMR) testing is recommended in the Netherlands for all patients under 70 years of age with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) in order to identify Lynch syndrome. T1 CRC can be removed by local excision or oncological surgical resection. We evaluated the frequency of MMR testing in pT1 lesions within the Dutch CRC screening cohort. pT1 CRC diagnosed within the Dutch population-based screening program from 2016-2018 were identified by the Dutch pathology registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were evaluated, including registration of MMR testing (by immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability PCR). Frequency of MMR testing was compared between pT1 tumors that were treated by local (endoscopic or transanal) excision and oncological surgical resections. A total of 3.692 pT1 CRCs were diagnosed (median age 63 years, 61.4% males). MMR testing was performed in 83% and uptake increased over time (71% in 2016 to 92% in 2018, p0.01). MMR testing was significantly more often performed in younger patients and in academic hospitals. When pT1 CRC was treated by oncological surgical resection (n=1.132), MMR testing was performed in 89% of cases and was known prior to oncological resection in 51% of cases. MMR testing occurred significantly less often in case of local excision (80% of n=2.560) compared to oncological surgical resection (p0.01). MMR testing was performed in 83% of T1 CRCs and uptake increased over time. MMR testing was more frequently performed in pT1 CRC resected by oncological surgical resection compared with local excision.

Published
2021

4. Reduction of anastomotic failure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery using antitraction sutures

Author

Amir Mearadji, Ralph P. M. Gadiot, Michalda S. Dunker, and Guido H. H. Mannaerts

Subjects
Laparoscopic surgery, Adult, Male, medicine.medical_specialty, Abdominal Abscess, medicine.medical_treatment, Anastomotic Leak, Anastomosis, Peritonitis, law.invention, Colonic Diseases, Postoperative Complications, Randomized controlled trial, law, Colon, Sigmoid, Internal medicine, Surgical Stapling, medicine, Humans, Prospective Studies, Reduction (orthopedic surgery), Colectomy, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Sutures, business.industry, Rectal Neoplasms, General surgery, Anastomosis, Surgical, Equipment Design, Hepatology, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Combined Modality Therapy, Colorectal surgery, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Surgery, Stenosis, Female, Laparoscopy, Stress, Mechanical, business, Colorectal Neoplasms, Abdominal surgery
Abstract

Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in colorectal surgery. This study investigates a new method for reducing anastomotic failure using antitraction sutures. In 2007, the authors began routine placement of three sutures at every one-third of the circular end-to-end anastomosis to reduce traction. Before the start of the new protocol, 76 patients received laparoscopic colorectal left sided surgery, 21 (28%) of whom received a defunctioning stoma. After the start of the new protocol, 77 patients received laparoscopic colorectal surgery, 6 (8%) of whom received a defunctioning stoma. Placement of a defunctioning stoma was significantly reduced (n = 21 vs. 6; P = 0.01). Only one patient (1%) in the sutured group experienced anastomotic leakage compared with six patients in the control group (P = 0.025). Other anastomosis-related complications during the follow-up period, including anastomotic stenosis and intraabdominal abscess, occurred more frequently in the control group, although the difference did not reach significance. The use of antitraction sutures to support the anastomosis seems to reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in laparoscopic left colorectal surgery. A prospective randomized trial is necessary to prove the decreasing effect of antitraction sutures on anastomotic leakage as well as the major decreasing effect on the necessity of placement of defunctioning stomas.

Published
2009

5. Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Restorative Proctocolectomy With Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis: A Randomized Trial.

Author

Stefan Maartense, Michalda S Dunker, J F Slors, Miguel A Cuesta, Dirk J Gouma, Sander J van Deventer, Ad A van Bodegraven, and Willem A Bemelman

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:: The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial.METHODS:: Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.RESULTS:: There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were € 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and € 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095).CONCLUSIONS:: Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2004
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results