Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004)., Conclusion: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: While most of the evidence on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is derived from expert centers, nationwide outcomes remain underreported. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation and outcome of MILS on a nationwide scale., Methods: Electronic patient files were reviewed in all Dutch liver surgery centers and all patients undergoing MILS between 2011 and 2016 were selected. Operative outcomes were stratified based on extent of the resection and annual MILS volume., Results: Overall, 6951 liver resections were included, with a median annual volume of 50 resections per center. The overall use of MILS was 13% (n = 916), which varied from 3% to 36% (P < 0.001) between centers. The nationwide use of MILS increased from 6% in 2011 to 23% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Outcomes of minor MILS were comparable with international studies (conversion 0-13%, mortality <1%). In centers which performed ≥20 MILS annually, major MILS was associated with less conversions (14 (11%) versus 41 (30%), P < 0.001), shorter operating time (184 (117-239) versus 200 (139-308) minutes, P = 0.010), and less overall complications (37 (30%) versus 58 (42%), P = 0.040)., Conclusion: The nationwide use of MILS is increasing, although large variation remains between centers. Outcomes of major MILS are better in centers with higher volumes., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the mandatory nationwide Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, rates of major complications and Failure to Rescue (FTR) after pancreatoduodenectomy between low- and high-mortality hospitals are compared, and independent predictors for FTR investigated., Methods: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in 2014 and 2015 in The Netherlands were included. Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on mortality rates. The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) and death after a major complication (FTR) were compared between these quartiles. Independent predictors for FTR were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis., Results: Out of 1.342 patients, 391 (29%) developed a major complication and in-hospital mortality was 4.2%. FTR occurred in 56 (14.3%) patients. Mortality was 0.9% in the first hospital quartile (4 hospitals, 327 patients) and 8.1% in the fourth quartile (5 hospitals, 310 patients). The rate of major complications increased by 40% (25.7% vs 35.2%) between the first and fourth hospital quartile, whereas the FTR rate increased by 560% (3.6% vs 22.9%). Independent predictors of FTR were male sex (OR = 2.1, 95%CI 1.2-3.9), age >75 years (OR = 4.3, 1.8-10.2), BMI ≥30 (OR = 2.9, 1.3-6.6), histopathological diagnosis of periampullary cancer (OR = 2.0, 1.1-3.7), and hospital volume <30 (OR = 3.9, 1.6-9.6)., Conclusions: Variations in mortality between hospitals after pancreatoduodenectomy were explained mainly by differences in FTR, rather than the incidence of major complications., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Auditing is an important tool to identify practice variation and 'best practices'. The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit is mandatory in all 18 Dutch centers for pancreatic surgery., Methods: Performance indicators and case-mix factors were identified by a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials (RCT's) and large series in pancreatic surgery. In addition, data dictionaries of two national audits, three institutional databases, and the Dutch national cancer registry were evaluated. Morbidity, mortality, and length of stay were analyzed of all pancreatic resections registered during the first two audit years. Case ascertainment was cross-checked with the Dutch healthcare inspectorate and key-variables validated in all centers., Results: Sixteen RCT's and three large series were found. Sixteen indicators and 20 case-mix factors were included in the audit. During 2014-2015, 1785 pancreatic resections were registered including 1345 pancreatoduodenectomies. Overall in-hospital mortality was 3.6%. Following pancreatoduodenectomy, mortality was 4.1%, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III morbidity was 29.9%, median (IQR) length of stay 12 (9-18) days, and readmission rate 16.0%. In total 97.2% of >40,000 variables validated were consistent with the medical charts., Conclusions: The Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, with high quality data, reports good outcomes of pancreatic surgery on a national level., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate adherence with follow-up criteria as suggested by the national guideline for breast cancer patients., Method: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 in two hospitals were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 198). Compliance with the guideline was assessed retrospectively by extracting follow-up care data from patient files for a period of five years., Results: Follow-up data were available for 196 patients. In the first year of follow-up, fewer consultations were performed compared to guideline standards. In the second through the fifth year of follow-up, more consultations were performed, with nearly double the number of consultations in the third until the fifth year compared to the guideline (p < 0.05). This excess usage was mainly associated with the fact that women had received radiotherapy (p < 0.01). Physical examinations were performed during 97 percent of consultations. Mammograms were performed slightly less often than suggested., Conclusions: Among women receiving follow-up care after breast cancer, more consultations were provided compared to the guideline recommendations. Mammograms were performed slightly less often than recommended. With regard to the performance of physical examinations, the guideline was followed., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)