| 1. |
- Muysoms, F. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Hernia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1248-9204 .- 1265-4906. ; 17:4, s. 423-433
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The literature dealing with abdominal wall surgery is often flawed due to lack of adherence to accepted reporting standards and statistical methodology. The EuraHS Working Group (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias) organised a consensus meeting of surgical experts and researchers with an interest in abdominal wall surgery, including a statistician, the editors of the journal Hernia and scientists experienced in meta-analysis. Detailed discussions took place to identify the basic ground rules necessary to improve the quality of research reports related to abdominal wall reconstruction. A list of recommendations was formulated including more general issues on the scientific methodology and statistical approach. Standards and statements are available, each depending on the type of study that is being reported: the CONSORT statement for the Randomised Controlled Trials, the TREND statement for non randomised interventional studies, the STROBE statement for observational studies, the STARLITE statement for literature searches, the MOOSE statement for metaanalyses of observational studies and the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A number of recommendations were made, including the use of previously published standard definitions and classifications relating to hernia variables and treatment; the use of the validated Clavien-Dindo classification to report complications in hernia surgery; the use of "time-to-event analysis" to report data on "freedom-of-recurrence" rather than the use of recurrence rates, because it is more sensitive and accounts for the patients that are lost to follow-up compared with other reporting methods. A set of recommendations for reporting outcome results of abdominal wall surgery was formulated as guidance for researchers. It is anticipated that the use of these recommendations will increase the quality and meaning of abdominal wall surgery research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Muysoms, F., et al.
(författare)
-
EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Hernia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1248-9204 .- 1265-4906. ; 16:3, s. 239-250
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although the repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias is one of the most commonly performed operations, many aspects of their treatment are still under debate or poorly studied. In addition, there is a lack of good definitions and classifications that make the evaluation of studies and meta-analyses in this field of surgery difficult. Under the auspices of the board of the European Hernia Society and following the previously published classifications on inguinal and on ventral hernias, a working group was formed to create an online platform for registration and outcome measurement of operations for ventral abdominal wall hernias. Development of such a registry involved reaching agreement about clear definitions and classifications on patient variables, surgical procedures and mesh materials used, as well as outcome parameters. The EuraHS working group (European registry for abdominal wall hernias) comprised of a multinational European expert panel with specific interest in abdominal wall hernias. Over five working group meetings, consensus was reached on definitions for the data to be recorded in the registry. A set of well-described definitions was made. The previously reported EHS classifications of hernias will be used. Risk factors for recurrences and co-morbidities of patients were listed. A new severity of comorbidity score was defined. Post-operative complications were classified according to existing classifications as described for other fields of surgery. A new 3-dimensional numerical quality-of-life score, EuraHS-QoL score, was defined. An online platform is created based on the definitions and classifications, which can be used by individual surgeons, surgical teams or for multicentre studies. A EuraHS website is constructed with easy access to all the definitions, classifications and results from the database. An online platform for registration and outcome measurement of abdominal wall hernia repairs with clear definitions and classifications is offered to the surgical community. It is hoped that this registry could lead to better evidence-based guidelines for treatment of abdominal wall hernias based on hernia variables, patient variables, available hernia repair materials and techniques.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Koeckerling, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Endovascular revascularization strategies for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal artery disease: a meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 44:11, s. 935-950
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Optimal endovascular management of intermittent claudication (IC) remains disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety outcomes for balloon angioplasty (BA), bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-coated balloons (DCB), drug-eluting stents (DES), covered stents, and atherectomy. Methods and results Electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCT) from inception through November 2021. Efficacy outcomes were primary patency, target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and quality-of-life (QoL). Safety endpoints were all-cause mortality and major amputation. Outcomes were evaluated at short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1-2 years), and long-term (>= 2 years) follow-up. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021292639). Fifty-one RCTs enrolling 8430 patients/lesions were included. In femoropopliteal disease of low-to-intermediate complexity, DCBs were associated with higher likelihood of primary patency [short-term: odds ratio (OR) 3.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.44-4.24; long-term: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.93-3.16], lower TLR (short-term: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49; long-term: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.60) and similar all-cause mortality risk, compared with BA. Primary stenting using BMS was associated with improved short-to-mid-term patency and TLR, but similar long-term efficacy compared with provisional stenting. Mid-term patency (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.89-3.03) and TLR (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22-1.11) estimates were comparable for DES vs. BMS. Atherectomy, used independently or adjunctively, was not associated with efficacy benefits compared with drug-coated and uncoated angioplasty, or stenting approaches. Paucity and heterogeneity of data precluded pooled analysis for aortoiliac disease and QoL endpoints. Conclusion Certain devices may provide benefits in femoropopliteal disease, but comparative data in aortoiliac arteries is lacking. Gaps in evidence quantity and quality impede identification of the optimal endovascular approach to IC.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
