| 1. |
- Agger, E. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Risk of local recurrence of rectal cancer and circumferential resection margin : population-based cohort study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 107:5, s. 580-585
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A circumferential resection margin (CRM) of 1·0 mm or less after rectal cancer surgery is thought to increase the risk of local recurrence (LR). This retrospective population-based study examined how CRM distance affects the LR risk. Methods: Data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry were used in a retrospective analysis of rectal cancers resected between 2005 and 2013. The primary endpoint was LR. Results: A total of 12 146 patients were identified, of whom 8392 were included in the analysis; 739 patients had a CRM of 1·0 mm or less and 7653 had a CRM larger than 1·0 mm. The mean follow-up time was 51 months. There were 66 LRs (8·9 per cent) in the group with a CRM of 1·0 mm or less, and 256 (3·3 per cent) among patients with a CRM larger than 1·0 mm. The LR rate was 17·0 per cent (27 of 159), 6·7 per cent (39 of 580), 1·9 per cent (2 of 103) and 3·4 per cent (254 of 7550) when the CRM was 0, 0·1–1·0, 1·1–1·9 and at least 2·0 mm respectively. The risk of LR among patients with a CRM of 0 mm was higher than that in all other subgroups with a larger CRM (P < 0·050). There was no difference in LR between the subgroups with CRM 1·1–1·9 mm and at least 2·0 mm. LR was diagnosed earlier when the CRM was 1·0 mm or less. Conclusion: LR risk is related to exact CRM, with the highest risk in patients with a CRM of 0 mm. Close monitoring of patients with no measurable clear margin may allow early detection of LR.
|
|
| 2. |
- Analatos, Apostolos, et al.
(författare)
-
Tension-free mesh versus suture-alone cruroplasty in antireflux surgery : a randomized, double-blind clinical trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 107:13, s. 1731-1740
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundAntireflux surgery is effective for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) but recurrence of hiatal hernia remains a challenge. In other types of hernia repair, use of mesh is associated with reduced recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to compare the use of mesh versus sutures alone for the repair of hiatal hernia in laparoscopic antireflux surgery.MethodsPatients undergoing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for GORD between January 2006 and December 2010 were allocated randomly to closure of the diaphragmatic hiatus with crural sutures or non-absorbable polytetrafluoroethylene mesh (CruraSoft®). The primary outcome was recurrence of hiatal hernia, as determined by barium swallow study 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: intraoperative and postoperative complications, use of antireflux medication, postoperative oesophageal acid exposure, quality of life, dysphagia and duration of hospital stay.ResultsSome 77 patients were randomized to the suture technique and 82 patients underwent mesh repair. At 1 year, the hiatal hernia had recurred in six of 64 patients (9 per cent) in the mesh group and two of 64 (3 per cent) in the suture group (P = 0·144). Reflux symptoms, use of proton pump inhibitors and oesophageal acid exposure did not differ between the groups. At 3 years, recurrence rates were 13 and 10 per cent in the mesh and suture groups respectively (P = 0·692). Dysphagia scores decreased in both groups, but more patients had dysphagia for solid food after mesh closure (P = 0·013). Quality-of-life scores were comparable between the groups.ConclusionTension-free crural repair with non-absorbable mesh does not reduce the incidence of recurrent hiatal hernia compared with use of sutures alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic fundoplication. NCT03730233 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Björnsson, Bergthor, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : WILEY. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 107:10, s. 1281-1288
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Studies have suggested that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding hospital stay, blood loss and recovery. Only one randomized study is available, which showed enhanced functional recovery after LDP compared with ODP. Methods Consecutive patients evaluated at a multidisciplinary tumour board and planned for standard distal pancreatectomy were randomized prospectively to LDP or ODP in an unblinded, parallel-group, single-centre superiority trial. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital stay. Results Of 105 screened patients, 60 were randomized and 58 (24 women, 41 per cent) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; there were 29 patients of mean age 68 years in the LDP group and 29 of mean age 63 years in the ODP group. The main indication was cystic pancreatic lesions, followed by neuroendocrine tumours. The median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (i.q.r. 4-5) days in the laparoscopic group versus 6 (5-7) days in the open group (P = 0 center dot 002). Functional recovery was attained after a median of 4 (i.q.r. 2-6) versus 6 (4-7) days respectively (P = 0 center dot 007), and duration of surgery was 120 min in both groups (P = 0 center dot 482). Blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery: median 50 (i.q.r. 25-150) ml versus 100 (100-300) ml in the open group (P = 0 center dot 018). No difference was found in the complication rates (Clavien-Dindo grade III or above: 4 versus 8 patients respectively). The rate of delayed gastric emptying and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the groups. Conclusion LDP is associated with shorter hospital stay than ODP, with shorter time to functional recovery and less bleeding. Registration number: ISRCTN26912858 ( ).
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Ghorbani, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of the Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) in Swedish trauma populations
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : Wiley. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 107:4, s. 381-390
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Trauma survival prediction models can be used for quality assessment in trauma populations. The Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) has been updated recently and validated internally (NORMIT 2). The aim of this observational study was to compare the accuracy of NORMIT 1 and 2 in two Swedish trauma populations.Methods: Adult patients registered in the national trauma registry during 2014-2016 were eligible for inclusion. The study populations comprised the total national trauma (NT) population, and a subpopulation of patients admitted to a single level I trauma centre (TC). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Model validation included receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and GiViTI calibration belts. The calibration was also assessed in subgroups of severely injured patients (New Injury Severity Score (NISS) over 15).Results: A total of 26 504 patients were included. Some 18 center dot 7 per cent of patients in the NT population and 2 center dot 6 per cent in the TC subpopulation were excluded owing to missing data, leaving 21 554 and 3972 respectively for analysis. NORMIT 1 and 2 showed excellent ability to distinguish between survivors and non-survivors in both populations, but poor agreement between predicted and observed outcome in the NT population with overestimation of survival, including in the subgroup with NISS over 15. In the TC subpopulation, NORMIT 1 underestimated survival irrespective of injury severity, but NORMIT 2 showed good calibration both in the total subpopulation and the subgroup with NISS over 15.Conclusion: NORMIT 2 is well suited to predict survival in a Swedish trauma centre population, irrespective of injury severity. Both NORMIT 1 and 2 performed poorly in a more heterogeneous national population of injured patients.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
