Satisfaction of Paediatric Oncology Patients, Survivors, and Nurses with the Position of Their Totally Implantable Venous Access Port (SPACE-Study).

BACKGROUND: To compare paediatric oncologic vascular access ports located on the anterior thoracic wall to ports on the lower lateral thoracic wall, in terms of perceived port-related hindrance and scar-quality. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study including paediatric oncology patients (≥8-<19 yrs), caregivers (in patients <8 yrs), survivors (>22 yrs with only anterior ports) and nurses of the Princess Máxima Center, the Netherlands, was performed. The survey consisted of questions regarding satisfaction, hindrance during daily life, and port position preference. For survivors, scar-quality was assessed using the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0); a high score (i.e., a displeasing scar) was defined as a score higher than the third quartile of the median for that question. RESULTS: In total, 147 participants were included; 83 patients/caregivers, 31 survivors, and 33 nurses. Overall, 81 % was satisfied with the position of their port. Satisfaction, hindrance and complications did not differ between anterior and lower lateral ports. For the anterior position, minimal pressure on the port during daily life was a mentioned reason to prefer this position. For the lower lateral position, less visibility of the scar and easiest access were mentioned. Of all survivors with an anterior port scar, one in five had a displeasing scar and all scars observed were widened. Female patients preferred a lower lateral port, and scar-quality was better for left-sided port scars. CONCLUSION: The port position should be chosen together with patients/caregivers based on the (dis-)advantages of each position, as identified by this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Tracked ultrasound registration for intraoperative navigation during pediatric bone tumor resections with soft tissue components: a porcine cadaver study.

PURPOSE: Resection of pediatric osteosarcoma in the extremities with soft tissue involvement presents surgical challenges due to difficult visualization and palpation of the tumor. Therefore, an adequate image-guided surgery (IGS) system is required for more accurate tumor resection. The use of a 3D model in combination with intraoperative tracked ultrasound (iUS) may enhance surgical decision making. This study evaluates the clinical feasibility of iUS as a surgical tool using a porcine cadaver model. METHODS: First, a 3D model of the porcine lower limb was created based on preoperative scans. Second, the bone surface of the tibia was automatically detected with an iUS by a sweep on the skin. The bone surface of the preoperative 3D model was then matched with the bone surface detected by the iUS. Ten artificial targets were used to calculate the target registration error (TRE). Intraoperative performance of iUS IGS was evaluated by six pediatric surgeons and two pediatric oncologic orthopedists. Finally, user experience was assessed with a post-procedural questionnaire. RESULTS: Eight registration procedures were performed with a mean TRE of 6.78 ± 1.33 mm. The surgeons agreed about the willingness for clinical implementation in their current clinical practice. They mentioned the additional clinical value of iUS in combination with the 3D model for the localization of the soft tissue components of the tumor. The concept of the proposed IGS system is considered feasible by the clinical panel, but the large TRE and degree of automation need to be addressed in further work. CONCLUSION: The participating pediatric surgeons and orthopedists were convinced of the clinical value of the interaction between the iUS and the 3D model. Further research is required to improve the surgical accuracy and degree of automation of iUS-based registration systems for the surgical management of pediatric osteosarcoma.

Development of a posterior sagittal anorectal surgical teaching model.

BACKGROUND: An Anorectal Malformation (ARM) is a rare congenital malformation, which requires proper correction to ensure the best long-term prognosis. These procedures are relatively infrequent and complex, in which a structured approach is important. Therefore, training on an affordable model could be beneficial. METHODS: A low-cost ARM model was developed. The base was reusable and the perineal body disposable. Both expert pediatric surgeons (Experts) and residents/fellows (Target group) were recruited for this study. After testing the model, they completed a questionnaire regarding the realism and didactic value of the model, using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-four participants were recruited (Target group n = 20, Experts n = 24). The model has high mean scores of 3.8-4.4 for the total group and even higher on several aspects by the Target group. The experts regarded the haptics and manipulation of the fistula less realistic than the Target group (3.7 versus 4.3, p = 0.021 and 4.2 versus 4.6, p = 0.047). It was considered to be a very good training tool (mean 4.3), without significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results show general consensus that this model is a potent training tool for the component steps of the repair of an ARM with recto-perineal fistula by sagittal approach.

Variation in circumferential resection margin: Reporting and involvement in the South-Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of total mesorectal surgery the outcome of rectal cancer patients has improved significantly. Involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) is an important predictor of increased local recurrence, distant metastases and decreased overall survival. Abdomino perineal excision (APE) is associated with increased risk of CRM involvement. Aim of this study was to analyze reporting of CRM and to identify predictive factors for CRM involvement. METHODS: A population-based dataset was used selecting 2153 patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2013 with primary rectal cancer undergoing surgery. Variation in CRM reporting was assessed and predictive factors for CRM involvement were calculated and used in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Large variation in CRM reporting was found between pathology departments, with missing cases varying from 6% to 30%. CRM reporting increased from 77% in 2008 to 90% in 2012 (p < 0.001). CRM involvement significantly decreased from 12% to 6% over the years (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis type of operation, low anterior resection or APE, did not influence the risk of CRM involvement. Clinical T4-stage [odds ratio (OR) = 3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.85-6.65) was associated with increased risk of CRM involvement, whereas neoadjuvant treatment (5 × 5 gray radiotherapy [OR 0.39; CI 0.25-0.62] or chemoradiation therapy [OR 0.30; CI 0.17-0.53]) were associated with significant decreased risk of CRM involvement. CONCLUSION: Although significant improvements are made during the last years there still is variation in reporting of CRM involvement in the Southern Netherlands. In multivariate analysis APE was no longer associated with increased risk of CRM involvement.

Improved quality of care for patients undergoing an abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: New diagnostics, the emergence of total mesorectal excision and neoadjuvant treatments have improved outcome for patients with rectal cancer. Patients with distal rectal cancer undergoing an abdominoperineal excision seem to do worse compared to those treated with sphinctersparing techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of care for patients undergoing an abdominoperineal excision for distal rectal cancer during the last 15 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with rectal cancer, who underwent an abdominoperineal excision between December 1996 and December 2010 in 5 Dutch hospitals were analysed. Patients were divided into three cohorts; 1996-2001, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010. All data was extracted from medical records. RESULTS: 477 patients were identified. There was no significant difference in sex, age, BMI, prior pelvic surgery and ASA stages between the cohorts. MRI became a standard tool in the work-up, the use increased from 4.5% in the first, to 95.1% in the last cohort (p < 0.0001). Neoadjuvant treatment shifted from predominantly none (64.9% in cohort 1) to short course radiotherapy (66.7% in cohort 2) and chemoradiation therapy (55.7% in cohort 3). There was a trend towards a decreased circumferential resection margin involvement in the cohorts (18.8%, 16.7% and 11.4%; p = 0.142). Accidental bowel perforations have significantly decreased from 28.6%, and 21.7% to 9.2% in cohort 3 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Significant improvements in work-up, neoadjuvant and surgical treatment have been made for patients with low rectal cancer, undergoing an abdominoperineal excision. These improvements result in improved short term outcome.