Search

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) hampers performance and experiencing an episode of LBP is strongly associated with recurrent episodes. OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of LBP and associated risk factors among young elite athletes in popular sports in the Netherlands were studied. METHODS: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed among 236 young elite athletes aged between 14–25 years in field hockey, football and speed skating. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty one (n = 181) athletes responded (response rate 77%). The overall, 12-month prevalence of LBP for the three sports was 60%: field hockey 56%, football 64% and speed skating 60%. Satisfaction with their own performance (OR = 0.5 95%CI:0.3–0.9) and with the coaching staff (OR = 0.5, 95%CI:0.4–0.8) were associated with a lower occurrence of LBP in field hockey. No sport-related risk factors were found in football. In speed skating more training hours (OR = 1.1, 95%CI:1.0–1.2), performance of Pilates (OR = 4.1, 95%CI:1.1–15.7) and more time spent on warming up (OR = 1.1, 95%CI:1.0–1.1) were associated with the occurrence of LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of LBP among young elite athletes compared to the general age-related population was 3–5 times higher. Sport-related risk factors of LBP were found in field hockey and in speed skating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC). Methods: A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015–12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group. Conclusions: This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately. Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy., Methods: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; p non-inferiority =0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; p non-inferiority =0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; p non-inferiority <0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days., Interpretation: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy., Funding: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MAH received grants for investigator-initiated studies from Ethicon, Medtronic, and Intuitive Surgical. MGB received grants for investigator-initiated studies from Ethicon, Medtronic, OncoSil, and Intuitive Surgical. DJL received a proctoring grant from Intuitive Surgical. GM received personal consulting fees for clinical trial design from OncoSil Medical and participates in the advisory board of OncoSil Medical. CHJvE received a consultancy grant from AIM ImmunoTech. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence on the value of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has been increasing but it is unclear how this has influenced the view of pancreatic surgeons on MIPS., Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to members of eight international Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations. Outcomes were compared with the 2016 international survey., Results: Overall, 315 surgeons from 47 countries participated. The median volume of pancreatic resections per center was 70 (IQR 40-120). Most surgeons considered minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) superior to open (ODP) (94.6%) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) superior to minimally invasive (MIPD) (67.9%). Since 2016, there has been an increase in the number of surgeons performing both MIDP (79%-85.7%, p = 0.024) and MIPD (29%-45.7%, p < 0.001), and an increase in the use of the robot-assisted approach for both MIDP (16%-45.6%, p < 0.001) and MIPD (23%-47.9%, p < 0.001). The use of laparoscopy remained stable for MIDP (91% vs. 88.1%, p = 0.245) and decreased for MIPD (51%-36.8%, p = 0.024)., Conclusion: This survey showed considerable changes of MIPS since 2016 with most surgeons considering MIDP superior to ODP and an increased use of robot-assisted MIPS. Surgeons prefer OPD and therefore the value of MIPD remains to be determined in randomized trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking., Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265)., Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI -6.2 to 13.6%; p non-inferiority  = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0-30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0-32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0-30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5-5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7-5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group., Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer., Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society., Competing Interests: Tobias Keck is a member of the advisory board for Olympus, Medtronic, and Dexter. Daan Lips received a proctoring grant by 10.13039/100010477Intuitive Surgical. Marc Besselink and Mohammad Abu Hilal received Investigator Initiated Research grants by Medtronic (DIPLOMA trial), Ethicon (DIPLOMA trial and E-MIPS registry), and Intuitive Surgical (E-MIPS registry) and proctoring grants for Dutch and European training programs in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy by Intuitive Surgical. The other authors have no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP., Methods/design: DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively., Discussion: The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)., Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC., Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival., Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929)., Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting., Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs., Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.