| 1. |
- Korolija, D, et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.
- 2004
-
In: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 18:6, s. 879-897
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Measuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research. Methods An expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research. Results Randomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely. The following QoL instruments can be recommended: for benign esophageal and gallbladder disease, the GIQLI or the QOLRAD together with SF-36 or the PGWB; for obesity surgery, the IWQOL-Lite with the SF-36; for colorectal cancer, the FACT-C or the EORTC QLQ-C30/CR38; for inguinal and renal surgery, the VAS for pain with the SF-36 (or the EORTC QLQ-C30 in case of malignancy); and after hysterectomy, the SF-36 together with an evaluation of urinary and sexual function. Conclusions Laparoscopic surgery provides better postoperative QoL in many clinical situations. Researchers would improve the quality of future studies by using validated QoL instruments such as those recommended here.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Stinner, B, et al.
(author)
-
Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in the prevention of postoperative infectious complications and sub-optimal recovery from operation in patients with colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4) - Protocol of a controlled clinical trial developed by consensus of an international study group Part three : individual patient, complication algorithm and quality management
- 2001
-
In: Inflammation Research. - 1023-3830 .- 1420-908X. ; 50:5, s. 233-248
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- General design: Presentation of a new type of a study protocol for evaluation of the effectiveness of an immune modifier (rhG-CSF, filgrastim): prevention of postoperative infectious complications and of sub-optimal recovery from operation in patients with colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4). A randomised placebo controlled, double-blinded, single-centre study is performed at an University Hospital (n = 40 patients for each group). This part presents the course of the individual patient and a complication algorithm for the management of anastomotic leakage and quality management. Objective: In part three of the protocol, the three major sections include: - The course of the individual patient using a comprehensive graphic display, including the perioperative period, hospital stay and post discharge outcome. - A center based clinical practice guideline for the management of the most important postoperative complication anastomotic leakage - including evidence based support for each step of the algorithm. - Data management, ethics and organisational structure. Conclusions: Future studies with immune modifiers will also fail if not better structured (reduction of variance) to achieve uniform patient management in a complex clinical scenario. This new type of a single-centre trial aims to reduce the gap between animal experiments and clinical trials or - if it fails - at least demonstrates new ways for explaining the failures.
|
|
| 4. |
- Veldkamp, R., et al.
(author)
-
Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)
- 2004
-
In: Surgical endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-2218 .- 0930-2794. ; 18:8, s. 1163-85
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002. METHODS: A systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer. RESULTS: Advanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is <1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
