Search

Aims There is considerable controversy regarding optimal management of patients with paraesophageal hiatus hernia (pHH). This survey aims at identifying recommended strategies for work-up, surgical therapy, and postoperative follow-up using Delphi methodology. Methods We conducted a 2-round, 33-question, web-based Delphi survey on perioperative management (preoperative work-up, surgical procedure and follow-up) of non-revisional, elective pHH among European surgeons with expertise in upper-GI. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items from the questionnaire were defined as “recommended” or “discouraged” if positive or negative concordance among participants was > 75%. Items with lower concordance levels were labelled “acceptable” (neither recommended nor discouraged). Results Seventy-two surgeons with a median (IQR) experience of 23 (14–30) years from 17 European countries participated (response rate 60%). The annual median (IQR) individual and institutional caseload was 25 (15–36) and 40 (28–60) pHH-surgeries, respectively. After Delphi round 2, “recommended” strategies were defined for preoperative work-up (endoscopy), indication for surgery (typical symptoms and/or chronic anemia), surgical dissection (hernia sac dissection and resection, preservation of the vagal nerves, crural fascia and pleura, resection of retrocardial lipoma) and reconstruction (posterior crurorrhaphy with single stitches, lower esophageal sphincter augmentation (Nissen or Toupet), and postoperative follow-up (contrast radiography). In addition, we identified “discouraged” strategies for preoperative work-up (endosonography), and surgical reconstruction (crurorrhaphy with running sutures, tension-free hiatus repair with mesh only). In contrast, many items from the questionnaire including most details of mesh augmentation (indication, material, shape, placement, and fixation technique) were “acceptable”. Conclusions This multinational European Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process to identify recommended strategies for the management of pHH. Our work may be useful in clinical practice to guide the diagnostic process, increase procedural consistency and standardization, and to foster collaborative research.

Importance: Ninety-day mortality rates after esophagectomy are an indicator of the quality of surgical oncologic management. Accurate risk prediction based on large data sets may aid patients and surgeons in making informed decisions. Objective: To develop and validate a risk prediction model of death within 90 days after esophagectomy for cancer using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database, the largest existing prospective, multicenter cohort reporting standardized postoperative outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic/prognostic study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients from 39 institutions in 19 countries between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Patients with esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to development and validation cohorts. A scoring system that predicted death within 90 days based on logistic regression ß coefficients was conducted. A final prognostic score was determined and categorized into homogeneous risk groups that predicted death within 90 days. Calibration and discrimination tests were assessed between cohorts. Exposures: Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause postoperative 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 8403 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.0] years; 6641 [79.0%] male) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 164), and the 90-day mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 353). Development (n = 4172) and validation (n = 4231) cohorts were randomly assigned. The multiple logistic regression model identified 10 weighted point variables factored into the prognostic score: age, sex, body mass index, performance status, myocardial infarction, connective tissue disease, peripheral vascular disease, liver disease, neoadjuvant treatment, and hospital volume. The prognostic scores were categorized into 5 risk groups: very low risk (score, =1; 90-day mortality, 1.8%), low risk (score, 0; 90-day mortality, 3.0%), medium risk (score, -1 to -2; 90-day mortality, 5.8%), high risk (score, -3 to -4: 90-day mortality, 8.9%), and very high risk (score, =-5; 90-day mortality, 18.2%). The model was supported by nonsignificance in the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the development cohort and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69) in the validation cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, on the basis of preoperative variables, the IESG risk prediction model allowed stratification of an individual patient's risk of death within 90 days after esophagectomy. These data suggest that this model can help in the decision-making process when esophageal cancer surgery is being considered and in informed consent.

OBJECTIVES Large retrospective series have indicated lower rates of cN0 to pN1 nodal upstaging after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) compared with open resections for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of our multicentre study was to investigate whether the presumed lower rate of N1 upstaging after VATS disappears after correction for central tumour location in a multivariable analysis. METHODS Consecutive patients operated for PET-CT based clinical Stage I NSCLC were selected from prospectively managed surgical databases in 11 European centres. Central tumour location was defined as contact with bronchovascular structures on computer tomography and/or visibility on standard bronchoscopy. RESULTS Eight hundred and ninety-five patients underwent pulmonary resection by VATS (n = 699, 9% conversions) or an open technique (n = 196) in 2014. Incidence of nodal pN1 and pN2 upstaging was 8% and 7% after VATS and 15% and 6% after open surgery, respectively. pN1 was found in 27% of patients with central tumours. Less central tumours were operated on by VATS compared with the open technique (12% vs 28%, P CONCLUSIONS A quarter of patients with central clinical Stage I NSCLC was upstaged to pN1 at resection. Central tumour location was the only independent factor associated with N1 upstaging, undermining the evidence for lower N1 upstaging after VATS resections. Studies investigating N1 upstaging after VATS compared with open surgery should be interpreted with caution due to possible selection bias, i.e. relatively more central tumours in the open group with a higher chance of N1 upstaging.

22nd European Conference on General Thoracic Surgery, Copenhagen, DENMARK, JUN 15-18, 2014; International audience; Video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resections are increasingly used in Europe to manage primary lung cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome following thoracoscopic versus open lobectomy in case-matched groups of patients from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeon (ESTS) database. All patients having lobectomy as the primary procedure via thoracoscopy [video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)-L)] or thoracotomy (TH-L) were identified in the ESTS database (January 2007 to December 2013). A propensity score was constructed using several patients' baseline characteristics. The matching using the propensity score was responsible for the minimization of selection bias. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare the incidence of postoperative major complications (according to the ESTS database definitions) and mortality at hospital discharge between the matched groups. After exclusions, 28 771 patients were identified: 26 050 having thoracotomy and 2721 having thoracoscopy. Propensity score yielded two well-matched groups of 2721 patients. Numeric variables were compared by Student's t-tests and categorical variables were compared by McNemar's tests. Compared with TH-L, VATS-L was associated with a lower incidence of total complications [n = 792 (29.1%) vs 863 (31.7%), P = 0.0357], major cardiopulmonary complications [n = 316 (15.9%) vs 435 (19.6%), P = 0.0094], atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy [n = 65 (2.4%) vs 150 (5.5%), P < 0.0001], initial ventilation > 48 h [n = 18 (0.7%) vs 38 (1.4%), P = 0.0075] and wound infection [n = 6 (0.2%) vs 17 (0.6%), P = 0.0218]. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation between the two groups (P = 0.14). Postoperative hospital stay was 2 days shorter in the VATS-L patients (mean: 7.8 vs 9.8 days; P = 0.0003). In terms of outcome at hospital discharge, there were 27 deaths in the VATS-L group (1%) versus 50 in the TH-L group (1.9%, P = 0.0201). Data from the ESTS database confirmed that lobectomy performed through VATS is associated with a lower incidence of complications compared with thoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence-based guidelines regarding surveillance for recurrence after esophageal and gastric (OG) cancer surgical resection, and which symptoms should prompt endoscopic or radiological investigations for recurrence. The aim of this study was to develop a core symptom set using a modified Delphi consensus process that should guide clinicians to carry out investigations to look for suspected recurrent OG cancer in previously asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A web-based survey of 42 questions was sent to surgeons performing OG cancer resections at high volume centers. The first section evaluated the structure of follow-up and the second, determinants of follow-up. Two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus process and a further consensus workshop were used to determine symptoms warranting further investigations. Symptoms with a 75% consensus agreement as suggestive of recurrent cancer were included in the core symptom set. RESULTS: 27 surgeons completed the questionnaires. A total of 70.3% of centers reported standardized surveillance protocols, whereas 3.7% of surgeons did not undertake any surveillance in asymptomatic patients after OG cancer resection. In asymptomatic patients, 40.1% and 25.9% of centers performed routine imaging and endoscopy, respectively. The core set that reached consensus, consisted of eight symptoms that warranted further investigations included; dysphagia to solid food, dysphagia to liquids, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, regurgitation of foods, unexpected weight loss and progressive hoarseness of voice. CONCLUSION: There is global variation in monitoring patients after OG cancer resection. Eight symptoms were identified by the consensus process as important in prompting radiological or endoscopic investigation for suspected recurrent malignancy. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to survival outcomes and evaluate prognostic value. ispartof: DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS vol:36 issue:1 ispartof: location:United States status: published