| 1. |
- Liu, Yang, et al.
(author)
-
Cytoreductive Surgery Plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Metastases From a Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma : Multi-Institutional Experience
- 2018
-
In: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : SPRINGER. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 25:5, s. 1184-1192
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The multi-institutional registry in this study evaluated the outcome after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). A multi-institutional data registry including 152 patients with PM from SBA was established. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) after CRS plus HIPEC. Between 1989 and 2016, 152 patients from 21 institutions received a treatment of CRS plus HIPEC. The median follow-up period was 20 months (range 1-100 months). Of the 152 patients, 70 (46.1%) were women with a median age of 54 years. The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 10 (mean 12; range 1-33). Completeness of cytoreduction (CCR) 0 or 1 was achieved for 134 patients (88.2%). After CRS and HIPEC, the median OS was 32 months (range 1-100 months), with survival rates of 83.2% at 1 year, 46.4% at 3 years, and 30.8% at 5 years. The median disease-free survival after CCR 0/1 was 14 months (range 1-100 months). The treatment-related mortality rate was 2%, and 29 patients (19.1%) experienced grades 3 or 4 operative complications. The period between detection of PM and CRS plus HIPEC was 6 months or less (P = 0.008), and multivariate analysis identified absence of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.037), well-differentiated tumor (P = 0.028), and PCI of 15 or lower (P = 0.003) as independently associated with improved OS. The combined treatment strategy of CRS plus HIPEC achieved prolonged survival for selected patients who had PM from SBA with acceptable morbidity and mortality.
|
|
| 2. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(author)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
In: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
