Search

Your search keyword '"Klaase J"' showing total 454 results
Start Over Author "Klaase J"
454 results on '"Klaase J"'

1. Nationwide validation of the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS)

Author

van Bodegraven, Eduard A., den Haring, Femke E. T., Pollemans, Britt, Monselis, Damaris, De Pastena, Matteo, van Eijck, Casper, Daams, Freek, de Hingh, Ignace, Luyer, Misha, Stommel, Martijn W. J., van Santvoort, Hjalmar C., Festen, S., Mieog, J. S. D., Klaase, J., Lips, D., Coolsen, M. M. E., van der Schelling, G. P., Manusama, E. R., Patijn, G., van der Harst, E., Bosscha, K., Marchegiani, Giovanni, and Besselink, Marc G.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Correction: Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a study protocol of a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Author

Vissers, F. L., Balduzzi, A., van Bodegraven, E. A., van Hilst, J., Festen, S., Hilal, M. Abu, Asbun, H. J., Mieog, J. S. D., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Busch, O. R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., De Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I. Q., Salvia, R., van Santvoort, H. C., Stommel, M., Lips, D., Coolsen, M., Bassi, C., van Eijck, C., and Besselink, M. G.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a study protocol of a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Author

Vissers, F. L., Balduzzi, A., van Bodegraven, E. A., van Hilst, J., Festen, S., Hilal, M. Abu, Asbun, H. J., Mieog, J. S. D., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Busch, O. R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., De Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I. Q., Salvia, R., van Santvoort, H. C., Stommel, M., Lips, D., Coolsen, M., Bassi, C., van Eijck, C., and Besselink, M. G.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Nationwide validation of the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS)

Author

MS HOD, Cancer, van Bodegraven, Eduard A, den Haring, Femke E T, Pollemans, Britt, Monselis, Damaris, De Pastena, Matteo, van Eijck, Casper, Daams, Freek, de Hingh, Ignace, Luyer, Misha, Stommel, Martijn W J, van Santvoort, Hjalmar C, Festen, S, Mieog, J S D, Klaase, J, Lips, D, Coolsen, M M E, van der Schelling, G P, Manusama, E R, Patijn, G, van der Harst, E, Bosscha, K, Marchegiani, Giovanni, Besselink, Marc G, MS HOD, Cancer, van Bodegraven, Eduard A, den Haring, Femke E T, Pollemans, Britt, Monselis, Damaris, De Pastena, Matteo, van Eijck, Casper, Daams, Freek, de Hingh, Ignace, Luyer, Misha, Stommel, Martijn W J, van Santvoort, Hjalmar C, Festen, S, Mieog, J S D, Klaase, J, Lips, D, Coolsen, M M E, van der Schelling, G P, Manusama, E R, Patijn, G, van der Harst, E, Bosscha, K, Marchegiani, Giovanni, and Besselink, Marc G

Published
2023

9. Nationwide validation of the distal fistula risk score (D-FRS).

Author

van Bodegraven, Eduard A., den Haring, Femke E. T., Pollemans, Britt, Monselis, Damaris, De Pastena, Matteo, van Eijck, Casper, Daams, Freek, de Hingh, Ignace, Luyer, Misha, Stommel, Martijn W. J., van Santvoort, Hjalmar C., Festen, S., Mieog, J. S. D., Klaase, J., Lips, D., Coolsen, M. M. E., van der Schelling, G. P., Manusama, E. R., Patijn, G., and van der Harst, E.

Subjects
DISEASE risk factors, FISTULA, PANCREATIC fistula, RECEIVER operating characteristic curves, PANCREATIC duct
Abstract

Purpose: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is associated with a high complication rate of 30–50% with postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) as a dominant contributor. Adequate risk estimation for POPF enables surgeons to use a tailor-made approach. Assessment of the risk of POPF prior to DP can lead to the application of preventive strategies. The current study aims to validate the recently published preoperative and intraoperative distal fistula risk score (D-FRS) in a nationwide cohort. Methods: This nationwide retrospective Dutch cohort study included all patients after DP for any indication, all of whom were registered in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database between 2013 and 2021. The D-FRS was validated by filling in the probability equations with data from this cohort. The predictive capacity of the models was represented by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: A total of 896 patients underwent DP of which 152 (17%) developed POPF of whom 144 grade B (95%) and 8 grade C (5%). The preoperative D-FRS, consisting of the variables pancreatic neck thickness and pancreatic duct diameter, showed an AUROC of 0.73 (95%CI 0.68–0.78). The intraoperative D-FRS, comprising pancreatic neck, duct diameter, BMI, operating time, and soft pancreatic aspect, showed an AUROC of 0.69 (95%CI 0.64–0.74). Conclusion: The current study is the first nationwide validation of the preoperative and intraoperative D-FRS showing acceptable distinguishing capacity for only the preoperative D-FRS for POPF. Therefore, the preoperative score could improve prevention and mitigation strategies such as drain management, which is currently investigated in the multicenter PANDORINA trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial

Author

Hop, W C, Opmeer, B C, Reitsma, J B, Scholte, R A, Waltmann, E W H, Legemate, D A, Bartelsman, J F, Meijer, D W, de Brouwer, M, van Dalen, J, Durbridge, M, Geerdink, M, Ilbrink, G J, Mehmedovic, S, Middelhoek, P, Di Saverio, Salomone, Boom, M J, Consten, E C J, van der Bilt, J D W, van Olden, G D J, Stam, M A W, Verweij, M S, Busch, O R C, Buskens, C J, El-Massoudi, Y, Kluit, A B, van Rossem, C C, Schijven, M P, Tanis, P J, Unlu, C, Gerhards, M F, Karsten, T M, de Nes, L C, Rijna, H, van Wagensveld, B A, Koffeman, G I, Steller, E P, Tuynman, J B, Bruin, S C, van der Peet, D L, Blanken-Peeters, C F J M, Cense, H A, Jutte, E, Crolla, R M P H, van der Schelling, G P, van Zeeland, M, de Graaf, E J R, Groenendijk, R P R, Vermaas, M, Schouten, O, de Vries, M R, Prins, H A, Lips, D J, Bosker, R J I, van der Hoeven, J A B, Diks, J, Plaisier, P W, Kruyt, P M, Sietses, C, Stommel, M W J, Nienhuijs, S W, de Hingh, I H J T, Luyer, M D P, van Montfort, G, Ponten, E H, Smulders, J F, van Duyn, E B, Klaase, J M, Swank, D J, Ottow, R T, Stockmann, H B A C, Vermeulen, J, Vuylsteke, R J C L M, Belgers, H J, Fransen, S, von Meijenfeldt, E M, Sosef, M N, van Geloven, A A W, Hendriks, E R, ter Horst, B, Leeuwenburgh, M M N, van Ruler, O, Vogten, J M, Vriens, E J C, Westerterp, M, Eijsbouts, Q A J, Bentohami, A, Bijlsma, T S, de Korte, N, Nio, D, Govaert, M J P M, Joosten, J J A, Tollenaar, R A E M, Stassen, L P S, Wiezer, M J, Hazebroek, E J, Smits, A B, van Westreenen, H L, Lange, J F, Brandt, A, Nijboer, W N, Toorenvliet, B R, Weidema, W F, Coene, P P L O, Mannaerts, G H H, den Hartog, D, de Vos, R J, Zengerink, J F, Hoofwijk, A G M, Hulsewé, K W E, Melenhorst, J, Stoot, J H M B, Steup, W H, Huijstee, P J, Merkus, J W S, Wever, J J, Maring, J K, Heisterkamp, J, van Grevenstein, W M U, Vriens, M R, Besselink, M G H, Borel Rinkes, I H M, Witkamp, A J, Slooter, G D, Konsten, J L M, Engel, A F, Pierik, E G J M, Frakking, T G, van Geldere, D, Patijn, G A, D'Hoore, A J L, de Buck van Overstraeten, A, Miserez, M, Terrasson, I, Wolthuis, A, De Blasiis, M G, Vennix, Sandra, Musters, Gijsbert D, Mulder, Irene M, Swank, Hilko A, Consten, Esther C, Belgers, Eric H, van Geloven, Anna A, Gerhards, Michael F, Govaert, Marc J, van Grevenstein, Wilhelmina M, Hoofwijk, Anton G, Kruyt, Philip M, Nienhuijs, Simon W, Boermeester, Marja A, Vermeulen, Jefrey, van Dieren, Susan, Lange, Johan F, and Bemelman, Willem A

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. The influence of hospital volume on long-term oncological outcome after rectal cancer surgery

Author

Jonker, Frederik H. W., Hagemans, Jan A. W., Burger, Jacobus W. A., Verhoef, Cornelis, Borstlap, Wernard A. A., Tanis, Pieter J., Aalbers, A., Acherman, Y., Algie, G. D., Alting von Geusau, B., Amelung, F., Aukema, T. S., Bakker, I. S., Bartels, S. A., Basha, S., Bastiaansen, A. J. N. M., Belgers, E., Bemelman, W. A., Bleeker, W., Blok, J., Bosker, R. J. I., Bosmans, J. W., Boute, M. C., Bouvy, N. D., Bouwman, H., Brandt-Kerkhof, A., Brinkman, D. J., Bruin, S., Bruns, E. R. J., Burbach, J. P. M., Clermonts, S., Coene, P. P. L. O., Compaan, C., Consten, E. C. J., Darbyshire, T., de Mik, S. M. L., de Graaf, E. J. R., de Groot, I., de vos tot Nederveen Cappel, R. J. L., de Wilt, J. H. W., van der Wolde, J., den Boer, F. C., Dekker, J. W. T., Demirkiran, A., Derkx-Hendriksen, M., Dijkstra, F. R., van Duijvendijk, P., Dunker, M. S., Eijsbouts, Q. E., Fabry, H., Ferenschild, F., Foppen, J. W., Furnée, E. J. B., Gerhards, M. F., Gerven, P., Gooszen, J. A. H., Govaert, J. A., Van Grevenstein, W. M. U., Haen, R., Harlaar, J. J., Harst, E., Havenga, K., Heemskerk, J., Heeren, J. F., Heijnen, B., Heres, P., Hoff, C., Hogendoorn, W., Hoogland, P., Huijbers, A., Gooszen, J. A. H., Janssen, P., Jongen, A. C., Karthaus, E. G., Keijzer, A., Ketel, J. M. A., Klaase, J., Kloppenberg, F. W. H., Kool, M. E., Kortekaas, R., Kruyt, P. M., Kuiper, J. T., Lamme, B., Lange, J. F., Lettinga, T., Lips, D. J., Logeman, F., Lutke Holzik, M. F., Madsen, E., Mamound, A., Marres, C. C., Masselink, I., Meerdink, M., Menon, A. G., Mieog, J. S., Mierlo, D., Musters, G. D., Neijenhuis, P. A., Nonner, J., Oostdijk, M., Oosterling, S. J., Paul, P. M. P., Peeters, K. C. M. J. C., Pereboom, I. T. A., Polat, F., Poortman, P., Raber, M., Reiber, B. M. M., Renger, R. J., van Rossem, C. C., Rutten, H. J., Rutten, A., Schaapman, R., Scheer, M., Schoonderwoerd, L., Schouten, N., Schreuder, A. M., Schreurs, W. H., Simkens, G. A., Slooter, G. D., Sluijmer, H. C. E., Smakman, N., Smeenk, R., Snijders, H. S., Sonneveld, D. J. A., Spaansen, B., Spillenaar Bilgen, E. J., Steller, E., Steup, W. H., Steur, C., Stortelder, E., Straatman, J., Swank, H. A., Sietses, C., ten Berge, H. A., ten hoeve, H. G., ter Riele, W. W., Thorensen, I. M., Tip-Pluijm, B., Toorenvliet, B. R., Tseng, L., Tuynman, J. B., van Bastelaar, J., van beek, S. C., van de Ven, A. W. H., van de Weijer, M. A. J., van den Berg, C., van den Bosch, I., van der Bilt, J. D. W., van der Hagen, S. J., van der hul, R., van der Schelling, G., van der Spek, A., van der Wielen, N., van duyn, E., van Eekelen, C., van Essen, J. A., van Gangelt, K., van Geloven, A. A. W., van kessel, C., van Loon, Y. T., van Rijswijk, A., van Rooijen, S. J., van Sprundel, T., van Steensel, L., van Tets, W. F., van Westreenen, H. L., Veltkamp, S., Verhaak, T., Verheijen, P. M., Versluis-Ossenwaarde, L., Vijfhuize, S., Vles, W. J., Voeten, S., Vogelaar, F. J., Vrijland, W. W., Westerduin, E., Westerterp, M. E., Wetzel, M., Wevers, K., Wiering, B., Witjes, A. C., Wouters, M. W., Yauw, S. T. K., Zeestraten, E. C., Zimmerman, D. D., Zwieten, T., and Dutch Snapshot Research Group

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Author

Vissers, F.L., Balduzzi, A., Bodegraven, E.A. van, Hilst, J. van, Festen, S., Abu Hilal, M., Asbun, H.J., Mieog, J.S.D., Koerkamp, B.G., Busch, O.R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., Pastena, M. de, Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I.Q., Salvia, R., Santvoort, H.C. van, Stommel, M., Lips, D., Coolsen, M., Bassi, C., Eijck, C. van, Besselink, M.G., and Dutch Pancreatic Canc Grp

Abstract

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure.The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score >= 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).

Published
2022

17. In-hospital Delay of Appendectomy in Acute, Complicated Appendicitis

Author

Bolmers, M. D. M., de Jonge, J., Bom, W. J., van Rossem, C. C., van Geloven, A. A. W., Bemelman, W. A., van Acker, G. J., Akkermans, B., Akkersdijk, G. J., Algie, G. D., Allema, J. H., Andeweg, C. S., Appeldoorn, N., van Baal, J. G., Bakker, C. M. den, Bartels, S. A., van den Berg, C., Boekestijn, B., Boer, F. C. den, Boerma, D., van den Boom, A. L., Boute, M. C., Bouwense, S. A., Bransen, J., van Brussel, F. A., Busch, O. R., de Castro, S. M., Cense, H. A., Croese, C., van dalen, T., Dawson, I., van Dessel, E., Dettmers, R., Dhar, N., Dohmen, F. Y., van Dongen, K. W., van Duijvendijk, P., Dulfer, R. R., Dwars, B. J., Eerenberg, J. P., van der Elst, M., van den Ende, E., Fassaert, L. M., Fikkers, J. T., Foppen, J. W., Furnee, E. J., Garssen, F. P., Gerhards, M. F., van Goor, H., de Graaf, J. S., Graat, L. J., Grootr, J., van der Ham, A. C., Hamming, J. F., Hamminga, J. T., van der Harst, E., Heemskerk, J., Heijne, A., Heikens, J. T., Heineman, E., Hertogs, R., van Heurn, E., van den Hil, L. C., Hooftwijk, A. G., Hulsker, C. C., Hunen, D. R., Ibelings, M. S., Klaase, J. M., Klicks, R., Knaapen, L., Kortekaas, R. T., Kruyt, F., Kwant, S., Lases, S. S., Lettinga, T., Loupatty, A., Matthijsen, R. A., Minnee, R. C., Mirck, B., Mitalas, L., Moes, D., Moorman, A. M., Nieuwenhuijs, V. B., Nieuwenhuizen, G. A., Nijk, P. D., Omloo, J. M., Ottenhof, A. G., Palamba, H. W., van der Peet, D. L., Pereboom, I. T., Plaisier, P. W., van der Ploeg, A. P., Raber, M. H., Reijen, M. M., Rijna, H., Rosman, C., Roumen, R. M., Scmitz, R. F., Schouten van der Velden, A. P., Scheurs, W. H., Sigterman, T. A., Smeets, H. J., Sonnevled, D. J., Sosef, M. N., Spoor, S. F., Stassen, L. P., van Steensel, L., Stortelder, E., Straatman, J., van Susante, H. J., Suykerbuyk de Hoog, D. E., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, C., Toorenvliet, B. R., Verbeek, P. C., Verseveld, M., Volders, J. H., Vriens, M. R., Vriens, P. W., Vrouenraets, B. C., van de wall, B. J., Wegdam, J. A., Westerduin, E., Wever, J. J., Wijfels, N. A., Wijnhoven, B. P., Winkel, T. A., van der Zee, D. C., Zeillemaker, A. M., Zietse, C., Amsterdam Reproduction & Development (AR&D), Pediatrics, AGEM - Re-generation and cancer of the digestive system, CCA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life, Other Research, Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Graduate School, AII - Infectious diseases, AGEM - Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Paediatric Surgery, and ARD - Amsterdam Reproduction and Development

Subjects
Delay in surgery, Tumours of the digestive tract Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 14], Gastroenterology, Surgery, Appendicitis, Complicated
Abstract

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Present theory is that uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis are different entities. Recent studies suggest it is safe to delay surgery in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. We hypothesize that patients with complicated appendicitis are at higher risk for postoperative complications when surgery is delayed. METHODS: Data was used from the multicenter, prospective SNAPSHOT appendicitis study of 1975 patients undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent appendectomy for appendicitis were included in this study. The primary outcome was the difference in postoperative complications between patients with complicated appendicitis who were operated within and after 8 h after hospital presentation. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in relationship to delay of appendectomy. Follow-up was 30 days. A multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 1341 adult patients with appendicitis, 34.3% had complicated appendicitis. In patients with complicated appendicitis, 22.8% developed a postoperative complication compared to 8.2% for uncomplicated appendicitis (P 8 h) increased the complication rate in patients with complicated appendicitis (28.1%) compared to surgery within 8 h (18.3%; P = 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed a delay in surgery as an independent predictor for a postoperative complication in patients with complicated appendicitis (OR 1.71; 95%CI 1.01-2.68, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In-hospital delay of surgery (> 8 h) in patients with complicated appendicitis is associated with a higher risk of a postoperative complication. It is important that we recognize and treat these patients early.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Author

Vissers, F. L., Balduzzi, A., van Bodegraven, E. A., van Hilst, J., Festen, S., Hilal, M. Abu, Asbun, H. J., Mieog, J. S.D., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Busch, O. R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., De Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I. Q., Salvia, R., van Santvoort, H. C., Stommel, M., Lips, D., Coolsen, M., Bassi, C., van Eijck, C., Besselink, M. G., Vissers, F. L., Balduzzi, A., van Bodegraven, E. A., van Hilst, J., Festen, S., Hilal, M. Abu, Asbun, H. J., Mieog, J. S.D., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Busch, O. R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., De Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I. Q., Salvia, R., van Santvoort, H. C., Stommel, M., Lips, D., Coolsen, M., Bassi, C., van Eijck, C., and Besselink, M. G.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C. METHODS/DESIGN: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage

Published
2022

23. Additional file 1 of Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial

Author

Vissers, F. L., Balduzzi, A., van Bodegraven, E. A., van Hilst, J., Festen, S., Hilal, M. Abu, Asbun, H. J., Mieog, J. S. D., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Busch, O. R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., De Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I. Q., Salvia, R., van Santvoort, H. C., Stommel, M., Lips, D., Coolsen, M., Bassi, C., van Eijck, C., and Besselink, M. G.

Abstract

Additional file 1.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Prospective nationwide outcome audit of surgery for suspected acute appendicitis

Author

van Rossem, C. C., Bolmers, M. D. M., Schreinemacher, M. H. F., van Geloven, A. A. W., Bemelman, W. A., van Acker, G. J. D., Akkermans, B., Akkersdijk, G. J. M., Algie, G. D., Allema, J. H., Andeweg, C. S., Appeldorn, N., van Baal, J. G., den Bakker, C. M., Bartels, S. A. L., van den Berg, C., Boekestijn, B., den Boer, F. C., Boerma, D., van den Boom, A. L., Boute, M. C., Bouwense, S. A. W., Bransen, J., van Brussel, F. A., Busch, O. R. C., de Castro, S. M. M., Cense, H. A., Croese, C., van Dalen, T., Dawson, I., van Dessel, E., Dettmers, R., Dhar, N., Dohmen, F. Y. M., van Dongen, K. W., van Duijvendijk, P., Dulfer, R. R., Dwars, B. J., Eerenberg, J. P., van der Elst, M., van den Ende, E., Fassaert, L. M. M., Fikkers, J. T., Foppen, J. W., Furnee, E. J. B., Garssen, F. P., Gerhards, M. F., van Goor, H., Gorter, R. R., de Graaf, J. S., Graat, L. J., Groote, J., van der Ham, A. C., Hamming, J. F., Hamminga, J. T. H., van der Harst, E., Heemskerk, J., Heij, H. A., Heijne, A., Heikens, J. T., Heineman, E., Hertogs, R., van Heurn, E., van den Hil, L. C. L., Hoofwijk, A. G. M., Hulsker, C. C. C., Hunen, D. R. M., Ibelings, M. S., Klaase, J. M., Klicks, R., Knaapen, L., Kortekaas, R. T. J., Kruyt, F., Kwant, S., Lases, S. S., Lettinga, T., Loupatty, A., Matthijsen, R. A., Minnee, R. C., Mirck, B., Mitalas, L., Moes, D., Moorman, A. M., Nieuwenhuijs, V. B., Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P., Nijk, P. D., Omloo, J. M. T., Ottenhof, A. G., Palamba, H. W., van der Peet, D. L., Pereboom, I. T. A., Plaisier, P. W., van der Ploeg, A. P. T., Raber, M. H., Reijnen, M. M. P. J., Rijna, H., Rosman, C., Roumen, R. M. H., Schmitz, R. F., van der Velden, Schouten A. P., Schreurs, W. H., Sigterman, T. A., Smeets, H. J., Sonneveld, D. J. A., Sosef, M. N., Spoor, S. F., Stassen, L. P. S., van Steensel, L., Stortelder, E., Straatman, J., van Susante, H. J., de Hoog, Suykerbuyk D. E. N. M., van Scheltinga, Terwisscha C., Toorenvliet, B. R., Verbeek, B. M., Verbeek, P. C. M., Verseveld, M., Volders, J. H., Vriens, M. R., Vriens, P. W. H. E., Vrouenraets, B. C., van de Wall, B. J. M., Wegdam, J. A., Westerduin, E., Wever, J. J., Wijffels, N. A. T., Wijnhoven, B. P. L., Winkel, T. A., van der Zee, D. C., Zeillemaker, A. M., and Zietse, C.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Screening for distant metastases in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence

Author

Poodt, Ingrid G. M., Schipper, Robert-Jan, de Greef, Bianca T. A., Vugts, Guusje, Maaskant-Braat, Adriana J. G., Jansen, Frits H., Wyndaele, Dirk N. J., Voogd, Adri C., Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard A. P., Roumen, R. M. H., Luiten, E. J. T., Rutgers, E. J. T., Vrancken-Peeters, M. T. F. D., Bessems, M., Klaase, J. M., Muller, S., Francken, A. B., Van Dalen, T., Koopal, S. A., Vissers, Y. L. J., Smidt, M. L., Merkus, J. W. S., Contant, C. M. E., Veldman, P. H., Linthorst-Niers, E. M. H., van der Sijp, J. R., Guicherit, O. R., Koppert, L. B., Bosch, A. M., Strobbe, L. J. A., Schlooz-Vries, M. S., Arntz, I. E., van Essen, J. A., de Waard, J. W. D., Vrouenraets, B. C., van Ooijen, B., Smidt, Marjolein, Groningen Institute for Organ Transplantation (GIOT), Value, Affordability and Sustainability (VALUE), Klinische Neurowetenschappen, MUMC+: KIO Kemta (9), RS: MHeNs - R1 - Cognitive Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, RS: MHeNs - R3 - Neuroscience, Epidemiologie, RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, Surgery, and MUMC+: MA Heelkunde (9)

Subjects
0301 basic medicine, Cancer Research, Palliative care, PROGNOSIS, medicine.medical_treatment, ACCURACY, Scintigraphy, Multimodal Imaging, 0302 clinical medicine, Breast cancer, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Breast, FDG-PET, Early Detection of Cancer, Mastectomy, Netherlands, Aged, 80 and over, medicine.diagnostic_test, 18F-FDG PET-CT, Liver Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Middle Aged, Sentinel node, Propensity score weight, Clinical Trial, Combined Modality Therapy, F-18-FDG PET-CT, PROPENSITY SCORE, Oncology, Positron emission tomography, Lymphatic Metastasis, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Distant metastasis, Female, Radiology, Adult, Conventional imaging, medicine.medical_specialty, Breast Neoplasms, Preoperative screening, 03 medical and health sciences, POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, medicine, Humans, COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY, CANCER PATIENTS, Radionuclide Imaging, SURGICAL ADJUVANT BREAST, Aged, Neoplasm Staging, LOCOREGIONAL RECURRENCES, Proportional hazards model, business.industry, medicine.disease, Reconstructive and regenerative medicine Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 10], 030104 developmental biology, Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, SENTINEL NODE, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, business
Abstract

Purpose In patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), the detection of distant disease determines whether the intention of the treatment is curative or palliative. Therefore, adequate preoperative staging is imperative for optimal treatment planning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of conventional imaging techniques, including chest X-ray and/or CT thorax-(abdomen), liver ultrasonography(US), and skeletal scintigraphy, on the distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) in patients with IBTR, and to compare conventional imaging with 18F-FDG PET-CT or no imaging at all. Methods This study was exclusively based on the information available at time of diagnoses of IBTR. To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the three imaging groups, a propensity score (PS) weighted method was used. Results Of the 495 patients included in the study, 229 (46.3%) were staged with conventional imaging, 89 patients (19.8%) were staged with 18F-FDG PET-CT, and in 168 of the patients (33.9%) no imaging was used (N = 168). After a follow-up of approximately 5 years, 14.5% of all patients developed a distant recurrence as first event after IBTR. After adjusting for the PS weights, the Cox regression analyses showed that the different staging methods had no significant impact on the DRFI. Conclusions This study showed a wide variation in the use of imaging modalities for staging IBTR patients in the Netherlands. After using PS weighting, no statistically significant impact of the different imaging modalities on DRFI was shown. Based on these results, it is not possible to recommend staging for distant metastases using 18F-FDG PET-CT over conventional imaging techniques. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05205-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Published
2019

33. Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres

Author

Görgec, B, primary, Fichtinger, R S, additional, Ratti, F, additional, Aghayan, D, additional, Van der Poel, M J, additional, Al-Jarrah, R, additional, Armstrong, T, additional, Cipriani, F, additional, Fretland, Å A, additional, Suhool, A, additional, Bemelmans, M, additional, Bosscha, K, additional, Braat, A E, additional, De Boer, M T, additional, Dejong, C H C, additional, Doornebosch, P G, additional, Draaisma, W A, additional, Gerhards, M F, additional, Gobardhan, P D, additional, Hagendoorn, J, additional, Kazemier, G, additional, Klaase, J, additional, Leclercq, W K G, additional, Liem, M S, additional, Lips, D J, additional, Marsman, H A, additional, Mieog, J S D, additional, Molenaar, Q I, additional, Nieuwenhuijs, V B, additional, Nota, C L, additional, Patijn, G A, additional, Rijken, A M, additional, Slooter, G D, additional, Stommel, M W J, additional, Swijnenburg, R J, additional, Tanis, P J, additional, Te Riele, W W, additional, Terkivatan, T, additional, Van den Tol, P M P, additional, Van den Boezem, P B, additional, Van der Hoeven, J A, additional, Vermaas, M, additional, Edwin, B, additional, Aldrighetti, L A, additional, Van Dam, R M, additional, Abu Hilal, M, additional, and Besselink, M G, additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Prophylactic abdominal drainage or no drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): a binational multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Author

Vissers, F. L., Balduzzi, A., van Bodegraven, E. A., van Hilst, J., Festen, S., Hilal, M. Abu, Asbun, H. J., Mieog, J. S. D., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Busch, O. R., Daams, F., Luyer, M., De Pastena, M., Malleo, G., Marchegiani, G., Klaase, J., Molenaar, I. Q., Salvia, R., van Santvoort, H. C., and Stommel, M.

Subjects
DRAINAGE, PANCREATECTOMY, PANCREATIC surgery, GASTRIC emptying, PANCREATIC fistula, HOSPITAL mortality
Abstract

Background: Prophylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.Methods/design: Binational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres

Author

Görgec, B., Fichtinger, R.S., Ratti, F., Aghayan, D., Poel, M.J.C.M. van der, Al-Jarrah, R., Armstrong, T., Cipriani, F., Fretland, A.A., Suhool, A., Bemelmans, M., Bosscha, K., Braat, A.E., Boer, M.T. De, Dejong, C.H.C., Doornebosch, P.G., Draaisma, W.A., Gerhards, M.F., Gobardhan, P.D., Hagendoorn, J., Kazemier, G., Klaase, J., Leclercq, W.K., Liem, M.S., Lips, D.J., Marsman, H.A., Mieog, J.Sven D., Molenaar, Q.I., Nieuwenhuijs, V.B., Nota, C.L., Patijn, G.A., Rijken, A.M., Slooter, G.D., Stommel, M.W.J., Swijnenburg, R.J., Tanis, P.J., Riele, W.W. ter, Terkivatan, T., Tol, P.M.P. van den, Boezem, P.B. van den, Hoeven, Jacobus van der, Vermaas, M., Edwin, B., Aldrighetti, L.A., Dam, R.M. van, Hilal, M. Abu, Besselink, M.G.H., Görgec, B., Fichtinger, R.S., Ratti, F., Aghayan, D., Poel, M.J.C.M. van der, Al-Jarrah, R., Armstrong, T., Cipriani, F., Fretland, A.A., Suhool, A., Bemelmans, M., Bosscha, K., Braat, A.E., Boer, M.T. De, Dejong, C.H.C., Doornebosch, P.G., Draaisma, W.A., Gerhards, M.F., Gobardhan, P.D., Hagendoorn, J., Kazemier, G., Klaase, J., Leclercq, W.K., Liem, M.S., Lips, D.J., Marsman, H.A., Mieog, J.Sven D., Molenaar, Q.I., Nieuwenhuijs, V.B., Nota, C.L., Patijn, G.A., Rijken, A.M., Slooter, G.D., Stommel, M.W.J., Swijnenburg, R.J., Tanis, P.J., Riele, W.W. ter, Terkivatan, T., Tol, P.M.P. van den, Boezem, P.B. van den, Hoeven, Jacobus van der, Vermaas, M., Edwin, B., Aldrighetti, L.A., Dam, R.M. van, Hilal, M. Abu, and Besselink, M.G.H.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 238990.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. RESULTS: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk

Published
2021

37. Long-Term Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive vs Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the LEOPARD Randomized Trial

Author

Korrel, M., Roelofs, A., Hilst, J. van der, Busch, O.R., Daams, F., Festen, S., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Klaase, J., Luyer, M.D., Oijen, M.G. van, Boezem, P.B. van den, Verdonck-de Leeuw, I.M., Besselink, M.G.H., Korrel, M., Roelofs, A., Hilst, J. van der, Busch, O.R., Daams, F., Festen, S., Koerkamp, B. Groot, Klaase, J., Luyer, M.D., Oijen, M.G. van, Boezem, P.B. van den, Verdonck-de Leeuw, I.M., and Besselink, M.G.H.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 245466.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) shortens time to functional recovery and improves 30-day quality of life (QoL), as compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for nonmalignant disease. The impact of MIDP on QoL, cosmetic satisfaction, and overall major complications beyond 1-year follow-up is currently unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD) trial randomized 108 patients to MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or ODP in 14 Dutch centers (April 2015 to March 2017). The primary outcome measure of this study was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as assessed with the EQ-5D. QoL was assessed using subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, PAN-26, and a body image questionnaire. The latter included a cosmetic satisfaction score (range 3-24), and a body image score (range 5-20). Differences between MIDP and ODP for QALYs, generic, and disease-specific QoL and body image were analyzed. Missing QoL data were imputed using multiple imputation. RESULTS: In total, 84 patients were alive, with a median follow-up of 44 months; 62 of these patients (74%) completed the questionnaires (27 MIDP, 35 ODP). There was no significant difference in QALYs between the 2 groups (mean score 2.34 vs 2.46 years, p = 0.63), nor on the QoL subscales. Significant overall change in EQ-5D health utilities were found for both groups over time (p < 0.001). Patients in the MIDP group scored higher on cosmetic satisfaction (21 vs 14, p = 0.049). No differences between the 2 groups were observed for clinical outcomes such as major complications, readmissions, and incisional hernias. CONCLUSIONS: More than 3 years after distal pancreatectomy, no improvement in QALYs and overall QoL was seen after MIDP, whereas cosmetic satisfaction was higher after MIDP as compared with ODP.

Published
2021

38. Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres

Author

Zorgeenheid Vaatchirurgie Zorg, MS CGO, Cancer, Görgec, B., Fichtinger, R. S., Ratti, F., Aghayan, D., Van der Poel, M. J., Al-Jarrah, R., Armstrong, T., Cipriani, F., Fretland, ÅA, Suhool, A., Bemelmans, M., Bosscha, K., Braat, A. E., De Boer, M. T., Dejong, C. H.C., Doornebosch, P. G., Draaisma, W. A., Gerhards, M. F., Gobardhan, P. D., Hagendoorn, J., Kazemier, G., Klaase, J., Leclercq, W. K.G., Liem, M. S., Lips, D. J., Marsman, H. A., Mieog, J. S.D., Molenaar, Q. I., Nieuwenhuijs, V. B., Nota, C. L., Patijn, G. A., Rijken, A. M., Slooter, G. D., Stommel, M. W.J., Swijnenburg, R. J., Tanis, P. J., Te Riele, W. W., Terkivatan, T., Van den Tol, P. M.P., Van den Boezem, P. B., Van der Hoeven, J. A., Vermaas, M., Edwin, B., Aldrighetti, L. A., Van Dam, R. M., Abu Hilal, M., Besselink, M. G., Zorgeenheid Vaatchirurgie Zorg, MS CGO, Cancer, Görgec, B., Fichtinger, R. S., Ratti, F., Aghayan, D., Van der Poel, M. J., Al-Jarrah, R., Armstrong, T., Cipriani, F., Fretland, ÅA, Suhool, A., Bemelmans, M., Bosscha, K., Braat, A. E., De Boer, M. T., Dejong, C. H.C., Doornebosch, P. G., Draaisma, W. A., Gerhards, M. F., Gobardhan, P. D., Hagendoorn, J., Kazemier, G., Klaase, J., Leclercq, W. K.G., Liem, M. S., Lips, D. J., Marsman, H. A., Mieog, J. S.D., Molenaar, Q. I., Nieuwenhuijs, V. B., Nota, C. L., Patijn, G. A., Rijken, A. M., Slooter, G. D., Stommel, M. W.J., Swijnenburg, R. J., Tanis, P. J., Te Riele, W. W., Terkivatan, T., Van den Tol, P. M.P., Van den Boezem, P. B., Van der Hoeven, J. A., Vermaas, M., Edwin, B., Aldrighetti, L. A., Van Dam, R. M., Abu Hilal, M., and Besselink, M. G.

Published
2021

43. Comparing Practice and Outcome of Laparoscopic Liver Resection Between High-volume Expert Centres and Nationwide Low-medium Volume Centres

Author

Görgec, B., primary, Fichtinger, R., additional, Ratti, F., additional, Aghayan, D., additional, van der Poel, M., additional, Al-Jarrah, R., additional, Armstrong, T., additional, Cipriani, F., additional, Fretland, Å., additional, Suhool, A., additional, Bemelmans, M., additional, Bosscha, K., additional, Braat, A., additional, de Boer, M., additional, Dejong, C., additional, Doornebosch, P., additional, Draaisma, W., additional, Gerhards, M., additional, Gobardhan, P., additional, Hagendoorn, J., additional, Kazemier, G., additional, Klaase, J., additional, Leclerq, W., additional, Liem, M., additional, Lips, D., additional, Marsman, H., additional, Mieog, J., additional, Molenaar, Q., additional, Nieuwenhuijs, V., additional, Nota, C., additional, Patijn, G., additional, Rijken, A., additional, Slooter, G., additional, Stommel, M., additional, Swijnenburg, R., additional, Tanis, P., additional, Riele, W. Te, additional, Terkivatan, T., additional, van den Tol, P., additional, van den Boezem, P., additional, van der Hoeven, J., additional, Vermaas, M., additional, Edwin, B., additional, Aldrighetti, L., additional, van Dam, R., additional, Hilal, M. Abu, additional, and Besselink, M., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Preoperative imaging for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based study

Author

Elfrink, A K E, primary, Pool, M, additional, Werf, L R, additional, Marra, E, additional, Burgmans, M C, additional, Meijerink, M R, additional, Dulk, M, additional, Boezem, P B, additional, Riele, W W, additional, Patijn, G A, additional, Wouters, M W J M, additional, Leclercq, W K G, additional, Liem, M S L, additional, Gobardhan, P D, additional, Buis, C I, additional, Kuhlmann, K F D, additional, Verhoef, C, additional, Besselink, M G, additional, Grünhagen, D J, additional, Klaase, J M, additional, and Kok, N F M, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. Volume–outcome relationship of liver surgery: a nationwide analysis

Author

Olthof, P B, primary, Elfrink, A K E, additional, Marra, E, additional, Belt, E J T, additional, van den Boezem, P B, additional, Bosscha, K, additional, Consten, E C J, additional, den Dulk, M, additional, Gobardhan, P D, additional, Hagendoorn, J, additional, van Heek, T N T, additional, IJzermans, J N M, additional, Klaase, J M, additional, Kuhlmann, K F D, additional, Leclercq, W K G, additional, Liem, M S L, additional, Manusama, E R, additional, Marsman, H A, additional, Mieog, J S D, additional, Oosterling, S J, additional, Patijn, G A, additional, te Riele, W, additional, Swijnenburg, R-J, additional, Torrenga, H, additional, van Duijvendijk, P, additional, Vermaas, M, additional, Kok, N F M, additional, Grünhagen, D J, additional, Besselink, M G H, additional, de Boer, M T, additional, Buis, C I, additional, van Gulik, T M, additional, Hoogwater, F J H, additional, Molenaar, I Q, additional, Dejong, C H C, additional, and Verhoef, C, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Influence of Conversion and Anastomotic Leakage on Survival in Rectal Cancer Surgery; Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

Author

Furnee, E.J.B., Aukema, T.S., Oosterling, S.J., Borstlap, W.A.A., Bemelman, W.A., Tanis, P.J., Aalbers, A., Acherman, Y., Algie, G.D., Geusau, B.A. von, Amelung, F., Bartels, S.A., Basha, S., Bastiaansen, A.J.N.M., Belgers, E., Bleeker, W., Blok, J., Bosker, R.J.I., Bosmans, J.W., Boute, M.C., Bouvy, N.D., Bouwman, H., Brandt-Kerkhof, A., Brinkman, D.J., Bruin, S., Bruns, E.R.J., Burbach, J.P.M., Burger, J.W.A., Buskens, C.J., Clermonts, S., Coene, P.P.L.O., Compaan, C., Consten, E.C.J., Darbyshire, T., Mik, S.M.L. de, Graaf, E.J.R. de, Groot, I. de, Cappel, R.J.L.D.N., Wilt, J.H.W. de, Wolde, J. van der, Boer, F.C. den, Dekker, J.W.T., Demirkiran, A., Derkx-Hendriksen, M., Dijkstra, F.R., Duijvendijk, P. van, Dunker, M.S., Eijsbouts, Q.E., Fabry, H., Ferenschild, F., Foppen, J.W., Gerhards, M.F., Gerven, P., Gooszen, J.A.H., Govaert, J.A., Grevenstein, W.M.U. van, Haen, R., Harlaar, J.J., Harst, E., Havenga, K., Heemskerk, J., Heeren, J.F., Heijnen, B., Heres, P., Hoff, C., Hogendoorn, W., Hoogland, P., Huijbers, A., Janssen, P., Jongen, A.C., Jonker, F.H., Karthaus, E.G., Keijzer, A., Ketel, J.M.A., Klaase, J., Kloppenberg, F.W.H., Kool, M.E., Kortekaas, R., Kruyt, P.M., Kuiper, J.T., Lamme, B., Lange, J.F., Lettinga, T., Lips, D.J., Logeman, F., Holzik, M.F.L., Madsen, E., Mamound, A., Marres, C.C., Masselink, I., Meerdink, M., Menon, A.G., Mieog, J.S., Mierlo, D., Musters, G.D., Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P., Neijenhuis, P.A., Nonner, J., Oostdijk, M., Paul, P.M.P., Peeters, K.C.M.J., Pereboom, I.T.A., Polat, F., Poortman, P., Raber, M., Reiber, B.M.M., Renger, R.J., Rossem, C.C. van, Rutten, H.J., Rutten, A., Schaapman, R., Scheer, M., Schoonderwoerd, L., Schouten, N., Schreuder, A.M., Schreurs, W.H., Simkens, G.A., Slooter, G.D., Sluijmer, H.C.E., Smakman, N., Smeenk, R., Snijders, H.S., Sonneveld, D.J.A., Spaansen, B., Bilgen, E.J.S., Steller, E., Steup, W.H., Steur, C., Stortelder, E., Straatman, J., Swank, H.A., Sietses, C., Berge, H.A. ten, Hoeve, H.G. ten, Riele, W.W. ter, Thorensen, I.M., Tip-Pluijm, B., Toorenvliet, B.R., Tseng, L., Tuynman, J.B., Bastelaar, J. van, Beek, S.C. van, Ven, A.W.H. van de, Weijer, M.A.J. van de, Berg, C. van den, Bosch, I. van den, Bilt, J.D.W. van der, Hagen, S.J. van der, Hul, R. van der, Schelling, G. van der, Spek, A. van der, Wielen, N. van der, Duyn, E. van, Eekelen, C. van, Essen, J.A. van, Gangelt, K. van, Geloven, A.A.W. van, Kessel, C. van, Loon, Y.T. van, Rijswijk, A. van, Rooijen, S.J. van, Sprundel, T. van, Steensel, L. van, Tets, W.F. van, Westreenen, H.L. van, Veltkamp, S., Verhaak, T., Verheijen, P.M., Versluis-Ossenwaarde, L., Vijfhuize, S., Vles, W.J., Voeten, S., Vogelaar, F.J., Vrijland, W.W., Westerduin, E., Westerterp, M.E., Wetzel, M., Wevers, K.P., Wiering, B., Witjes, C.D.M., Wouters, M.W., Yauw, S.T.K., Zaag, E.S. van der, Zeestraten, E.C., Zimmerman, D.D., Zwieten, T., and Dutch Snapshot Res Grp

Subjects
Survival, Anastomosis, Laparoscopy, Conversion, Rectal cancer
Published
2019

50. Costs and quality of life in a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD trial)

Author

van Hilst, J., Strating, E. A., de Rooij, T., Daams, F., Festen, S., Groot Koerkamp, B., Klaase, J. M., Luyer, M., Dijkgraaf, M. G., Besselink, M. G., van Santvoort, H. C., de Boer, M. T., Boerma, D., van den Boezem, P. B., van Dam, R. M., Dejong, C. H., van Duyn, E. B., van Eijck, C. H., Gerhards, M. F., de Hingh, I. H., Kazemier, G., de Kleine, R. H., van Laarhoven, C. J., Patijn, G. A., Steenvoorde, P., Suker, M., Hilal, M. Abu, RS: NUTRIM - R2 - Liver and digestive health, MUMC+: MA Heelkunde (9), Surgery, Groningen Institute for Organ Transplantation (GIOT), Value, Affordability and Sustainability (VALUE), AGEM - Re-generation and cancer of the digestive system, CCA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life, Epidemiology and Data Science, APH - Methodology, AGEM - Digestive immunity, and CCA - Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life

Subjects
Male, Cost effectiveness, SURGERY, Cost-Benefit Analysis, INTERNATIONAL STUDY-GROUP, OPEN ILEOCOLIC RESECTION, law.invention, BODY-IMAGE, Tumours of the digestive tract Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 14], Postoperative Complications, 0302 clinical medicine, Robotic Surgical Procedures, Quality of life, Randomized controlled trial, law, Hospital Costs/statistics & numerical data, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 80 and over, Single-Blind Method, Hospital Costs, Laparoscopy, Netherlands, Aged, 80 and over, medicine.diagnostic_test, Middle Aged, Multicenter Study, Patient Satisfaction, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Randomized Controlled Trial, Original Article, 030211 gastroenterology & hepatology, Female, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Adult, medicine.medical_specialty, Pancreatectomy/economics, COSMESIS, 03 medical and health sciences, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), All institutes and research themes of the Radboud University Medical Center, Pancreatectomy, Patient satisfaction, medicine, Journal Article, Humans, Comparative Study, Aged, Laparoscopy/economics, business.industry, Cosmesis, Original Articles, Recovery of Function, Confidence interval, Surgery, Quality-adjusted life year, Postoperative Complications/economics, DEFINITION, Quality of Life, Robotic Surgical Procedures/economics, business, Follow-Up Studies
Abstract

Background Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy decreases time to functional recovery compared with open distal pancreatectomy, but the cost-effectiveness and impact on disease-specific quality of life have yet to be established. Methods The LEOPARD trial randomized patients to minimally invasive (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) or open distal pancreatectomy in 14 Dutch centres between April 2015 and March 2017. Use of hospital healthcare resources, complications and disease-specific quality of life were recorded up to 1 year after surgery. Unit costs of hospital healthcare resources were determined, and cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses were performed. Primary outcomes were the costs per day earlier functional recovery and per quality-adjusted life-year. Results All 104 patients who had a distal pancreatectomy (48 minimally invasive and 56 open) in the trial were included in this study. Patients who underwent a robot-assisted procedure were excluded from the cost analysis. Total medical costs were comparable after laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy (mean difference €–427 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval €–4700 to 3613; P = 0·839). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was shown to have a probability of at least 0·566 of being more cost-effective than the open approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per day of earlier recovery, and a probability of 0·676 per additional quality-adjusted life-year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80 000. There were no significant differences in cosmetic satisfaction scores (median 9 (i.q.r. 5·75–10) versus 7 (4–8·75); P = 0·056) and disease-specific quality of life after minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures) versus open distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was at least as cost-effective as open distal pancreatectomy in terms of time to functional recovery and quality-adjusted life-years. Cosmesis and quality of life were similar in the two groups 1 year after surgery.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results