| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Veldkamp, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Surgical endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-2218 .- 0930-2794. ; 18:8, s. 1163-85
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bauhofer, A., et al.
(författare)
-
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 for a controlled clinical trial developed by consensus of an international study group : Part two
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Inflammation Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1023-3830 .- 1420-908X. ; 50:4, s. 187-205
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)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) This part describes the design of the randomised, placebo controlled, double-blinded, single-centre study performed at an university hospital (n = 40 patients for each group). Objective: The trial design includes the following elements for a prototype protocol: - The study population is restricted to patients with colorectal cancer, including a left sided resection and an increased perioperative risk (ASA 3 and 4). - Patients are allocated by random to the control or treatment group. - The double blinding strategy of the trial is assessed by psychometric indices - An endpoint construct with quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and a recovery index (modified Mc Peek index) are used as primary endpoints Qualitative analysis of clinical relevance of the endpoints is performed by both patients and doctors. - Statistical analysis uses an area under the curve (AUC) model for improvement of quality of life on leaving hospital and two and six months after operation. A confirmatory statistical model with quality of life as the first primary endpoint in the hierarchic test procedure is used. Expectations of patients and surgeons and the negative affect are analysed by social psychological scales. Conclusion: This study design differs from other trials on preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative recovery, and has been developed to try a new concept and avoid previous failures.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Loeber, JG, et al.
(författare)
-
Neonatal Screening in Europe Revisited: An ISNS Perspective on the Current State and Developments Since 2010
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International journal of neonatal screening. - : MDPI AG. - 2409-515X. ; 7:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Neonatal screening (NBS) was initiated in Europe during the 1960s with the screening for phenylketonuria. The panel of screened disorders (“conditions”) then gradually expanded, with a boost in the late 1990s with the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), making it possible to screen for 40–50 conditions using a single blood spot. The most recent additions to screening programmes (screening for cystic fibrosis, severe combined immunodeficiency and spinal muscular atrophy) were assisted by or realised through the introduction of molecular technologies. For this survey, we collected data from 51 European countries. We report the developments between 2010 and 2020 and highlight the achievements reached with the progress made in this period. We also identify areas where further progress can be made, mainly by exchanging knowledge and learning from experiences in neighbouring countries. Between 2010 and 2020, most NBS programmes in geographical Europe matured considerably, both in terms of methodology (modernised) and with regard to the panel of conditions screened (expanded). These developments indicate that more collaboration in Europe through European organisations is gaining momentum. We can only accomplish the timely detection of newborn infants potentially suffering from one of the many rare diseases and take appropriate action by working together.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lorenz, W., et al.
(författare)
-
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) : Part one
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Inflammation Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1023-3830 .- 1420-908X. ; 50:3, s. 115-122
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- General design: Presentation of a novel study protocol to evalue the effectiveness of an immune modifier (rhG-CSF, filgrastim): prevention of postoperative infectious complications and sub-optimal recovery from operation in patients with colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4). The rationale and hypothesis are presented in this part of the protocol of the randomised, placebo controlled, double-blinded, single-centre study performed at an - university hospital (n = 40 patients for each group). Objective: Part one of this protocol describes the concepts of three major sections of the study: - Definition of optimum and sub-optimal recovery after operation. Recovery, as an outcome, is not a simple univariate endpoint, but a complex construction of mechanistic variables (i. e. death, complications and health status assessed by the surgeon), quality of life expressed by the patient, and finally a weighted outcome judgement by both the patient and the surgeon (true endpoint). Its conventional early assessment within 14-28 days is artificial: longer periods (such as 6 months) are needed for the patient to state: "I am now as well as I was before". Identification of suitable target patients: - the use of biological response modifiers (immune modulators) in addition to traditional prophylaxes (i. e. antibiotics, heparin, volume substitutes) may improve postoperative outcome in appropriate selected patients with reduced host defence and increased immunological stress response, but these have to be defined. Patients classified as ASA 3 and 4 (American Society for Anaesthesiologists) and with colorectal cancer will be studied to prove this hypothesis. Choice of biological response modifier: - Filgrastim has been chosen as an example of a biological response modifier because it was effective in a new study type, clinic-modelling randomised trials in rodents, and has shown promise in some clinical trials for indications other than preoperative prophylaxis. It has also enhanced host defence and has been anti-inflammatory in basic research. Conclusion: The following hypothesis will be tested in patients with operations for colorectal cancer and increased preoperative risk (ASA 3 and 4): is the outcome as evaluated by the hermeneutic endpoint (quality of life expressed by the patient) and mechanistic endpoints (mortality rate, complication rate, relative hospital stay, assessed by the doctor) improved in the group receiving filgrastim prophylaxis in comparison with the placebo group? Quality of life will be the first primary endpoint in the hierarchical, statistical testing of confirmatory analysis.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2020, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes.
|
|
