Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Procedure-based assessment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy can replace global rating scales.

INTRODUCTION: Global rating scales (GRSs) such as the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgery (GOALS) are assessment methods for surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to establish construct validity of Procedure-Based Assessment (PBA) and to compare PBA with GRSs for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: OSATS and GOALS GRSs were compared with PBA in their ability to discriminate between levels of performance between trainees who can perform the procedure independently and those who cannot. Three groups were formed based on the number of procedures performed by the trainee: novice (1-10), intermediate (11-20) and experienced (>20). Differences between groups were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Increasing experience correlated significantly with higher GRSs and PBA scores (all p < .001). Scores of novice and intermediate groups overlapped substantially on the OSATS (p = .1) and GOALS (p = .1), while the PBA discriminated between these groups (p = .03). The median score in the experienced group was higher with less dispersion for PBA (97.2[85.3-100]) compared to OSATS (82.1[60.7-100]) and GOALS (80[60-100]). CONCLUSION: For assessing skill level or the capability of performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy independently, PBA has a higher discriminative ability compared to the GRSs.

Effect of direct oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy on costs and quality of life.

AIMS: Following (minimally invasive) esophagectomy, patients often rely on tube feeding, since oral intake is often delayed. Consequently, additional support by a dietician and home care is needed until oral intake is commenced. In this study, the effects of direct start of oral feeding compared with tube feeding following an esophagectomy was evaluated on treatment costs and health-related quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomized in the NUTRIENT II study between controls (nil-per-mouth during 5 days and subsequent tube feeding) and a group in whom oral feeding was started directly postoperatively. Total hospital costs (including readmission and outpatient costs) and home care data for a period of 6 months after surgery were analyzed. QoL (measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC OG-25) was assessed preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total 132 patients were included (n = 65 direct oral feeding group and n = 67 control group). Mean patient hospital costs were €26,014 in the intervention group over a 6-month period compared to €26,989 in the control group (p = .825). Furthermore, people with direct oral feeding required significantly less home care assistance; i.e. 23 (48.9%) intervention patients versus 37 (77.1%) control patients (p = .004). Also, QoL in patients with direct oral feeding progressed more quickly when compared to the control group. LIMITATIONS: Hospital costs were derived from a single hospital unit whereas costs from all the participating units may be a better reflection of the cost deviation. Availability of homecare data was limited, leading to difficulty in detecting differences in costs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that direct oral feeding leads to similar total costs and a significantly reduced need for home care assistance. Furthermore, QoL in intervention group increased more quickly when compared to the control group.

Assessment of Contraceptive Counseling and Contraceptive Use in Women After Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reproductive-aged women are, according to American and European guidelines, recommended to avoid pregnancy for 12-24 months after bariatric surgery. Oral contraceptives may have suboptimal efficacy after malabsorptive bariatric procedures. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess contraceptive use pre- and postoperatively in women who underwent bariatric surgery in two obesity clinics in The Netherlands. Also, the recall of contraceptive and pregnancy counseling was investigated. METHODS: A validated questionnaire was performed among women aged 18-45 years who underwent bariatric surgery from October 2017 through August 2018. RESULTS: In total, 230 women were eligible for final analysis. Postoperatively, 60% used safe contraception, 16.1% unsafe contraception, and 23.9% no contraception. In this study, 43.7% of women using a potential unsafe contraceptive method preoperatively switched to a safe method of contraception postoperatively (p < 0.0001). Only 62.6% of women confirmed to have received contraceptive counseling, mainly preoperatively. The odds ratio for receiving contraceptive counseling and using safe contraceptive methods compared with not receiving contraceptive counseling was 2.20 (95% CI, 1.27-3.79; p = 0.005). Eighty-three percent confirmed that they have received counseling regarding delaying a pregnancy, and 52.6% were familiar with the recommendation to avoid a pregnancy for 24 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, 60% of women are using safe contraception postoperatively. Contraceptive counseling is suboptimal as 62.6% recall receiving counseling. Those who confirmed receiving counseling were more likely to use safe contraception after bariatric surgery. More counseling and monitoring in the postoperative and in the outpatient setting is recommended.

Risk-Assessment of Esophageal Surgery: Diagnosis and Treatment of Celiac Trunk Stenosis.

Anastomotic leakage of the gastric conduit following surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is a life-threatening complication. An important risk factor associated with anastomotic leakage is calcification of the supplying arteries of the gastric conduit. The patency of calcified splanchnic arteries cannot be assessed on routine computed tomography (CT) scans for esophageal cancer and, as such, in selected patients with known or assumed mesenteric artery disease, additional CT angiography of the abdominal arteries with 1 mm slices is strongly encouraged. If the mesenteric perfusion is compromised in patients with resectable esophageal cancer, angioplasty procedures with stenting of the mesenteric arteries could be performed to prevent possible ischemia of the gastric conduit.

Intrathoracic versus Cervical ANastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: study protocol of the ICAN randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) is often performed after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, the CEA is associated with a considerable incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation and moderate functional results. An intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) might reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage, improve functional results and reduce costs. The objective of the ICAN trial is to compare anastomotic leakage and postoperative morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness between CEA and IEA after MIE. METHODS/DESIGN: The ICAN trial is an open randomized controlled multicentre superiority trial, comparing CEA (control group) with IEA (intervention group) after MIE. All patients with esophageal cancer planning to undergo curative MIE are considered for inclusion. A total of 200 patients will be included in the study and randomized between the groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation, and secondary outcomes are (amongst others) other postoperative complications, new onset of organ failure, length of stay, mortality, benign strictures requiring dilatation, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that an IEA after MIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation than a CEA. The trial is also designed to give answers to additional research questions regarding a possible difference in functional outcome, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4333 . Registered on 23 December 2013.

The predictive value of aptitude assessment in laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Current methods of assessing candidates for medical specialties that involve laparoscopic skills suffer from a lack of instruments to assess the ability to work in a minimally invasive surgery environment. OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate whether aptitude assessment can be used to predict variability in the acquisition and performance of laparoscopic skills. METHODS: PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were searched to November 2014 for published and unpublished studies reporting the measurement of a form of aptitude for laparoscopic skills. The quality of studies was assessed with QUADAS-2. Summary correlations were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were found to be eligible for inclusion; six of these studies used an operating room performance measurement. Laparoscopic skills correlated significantly with visual-spatial ability (r = 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.39; p < 0.001), perceptual ability (r = 0.31, 95% CI 0.22-0.39; p < 0.001), psychomotor ability (r = 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.40; p = 0.003) and simulator-based assessment of aptitude (r = 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.73; p < 0.001). Three-dimensional dynamic visual-spatial ability showed a significantly higher correlation than intrinsic static visual-spatial ability (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In general, aptitude assessments are associated with laparoscopic skill level. Simulator-based assessment of aptitude appears to have the potential to represent a job sample and to enable the assessment of all forms of aptitude for laparoscopic surgery at once. A laparoscopy aptitude test can be a valuable additional tool in the assessment of candidates for medical specialties that require laparoscopic skills.

Validity, reliability and support for implementation of independence-scaled procedural assessment in laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is no widely used method to evaluate procedure-specific laparoscopic skills. The first aim of this study was to develop a procedure-based assessment method. The second aim was to compare its validity, reliability and feasibility with currently available global rating scales (GRSs). METHODS: An independence-scaled procedural assessment was created by linking the procedural key steps of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy to an independence scale. Subtitled and blinded videos of a novice, an intermediate and an almost competent trainee, were evaluated with GRSs (OSATS and GOALS) and the independence-scaled procedural assessment by seven surgeons, three senior trainees and six scrub nurses. Participants received a short introduction to the GRSs and independence-scaled procedural assessment before assessment. The validity was estimated with the Friedman and Wilcoxon test and the reliability with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). A questionnaire was used to evaluate user opinion. RESULTS: Independence-scaled procedural assessment and GRS scores improved significantly with surgical experience (OSATS p = 0.001, GOALS p < 0.001, independence-scaled procedural assessment p < 0.001). The ICCs of the OSATS, GOALS and independence-scaled procedural assessment were 0.78, 0.74 and 0.84, respectively, among surgeons. The ICCs increased when the ratings of scrub nurses were added to those of the surgeons. The independence-scaled procedural assessment was not considered more of an administrative burden than the GRSs (p = 0.692). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: A procedural assessment created by combining procedural key steps to an independence scale is a valid, reliable and acceptable assessment instrument in surgery. In contrast to the GRSs, the reliability of the independence-scaled procedural assessment exceeded the threshold of 0.8, indicating that it can also be used for summative assessment. It furthermore seems that scrub nurses can assess the operative competence of surgical trainees.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial).

BACKGROUND: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. METHODS: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02248519.

Validity and reliability of global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS) in novice trainees performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

PURPOSE: Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) assessment has been designed to evaluate skills in laparoscopic surgery. A longitudinal blinded study of randomized video fragments was conducted to estimate the validity and reliability of GOALS in novice trainees. METHODS: In total, 10 trainees each performed 6 consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Sixty procedures were recorded on video. Video fragments of (1) opening of the peritoneum; (2) dissection of Calot's triangle and achievement of critical view of safety; and (3) dissection of the gallbladder from the liver bed were blinded, randomized, and rated by 2 consultant surgeons using GOALS. Also, a grade was given for overall competence. The correlation of GOALS with live observation Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores was calculated. Construct validity was estimated using the Friedman 2-way analysis of variance by ranks and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The interrater reliability was calculated using the absolute and consistency agreement 2-way random-effects model intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A high correlation was found between mean GOALS score (r = 0.879, p = 0.021) and mean OSATS score. The GOALS score increased significantly across the 6 procedures (p = 0.002). The trainees performed significantly better on their sixth when compared with their first cholecystectomy (p = 0.004). The consistency agreement interrater reliability was 0.37 for the mean GOALS score (p = 0.002) and 0.55 for overall competence (p < 0.001) of the 3 video fragments. CONCLUSION: The validity observed in this randomized blinded longitudinal study supports the existing evidence that GOALS is a valid tool for assessment of novice trainees. A relatively low reliability was found in this study.

Ergonomic assessment of the French and American position for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the MIS Suite.

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy was one of the first surgical procedures to be performed with laparoscopy in the 1980s. Currently, two operation setups generally are used to perform a laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the French and the American position. In the French position, the patient lies in the lithotomy position, whereas in the American position, the patient lies supine with the left arm in abduction. To find an ergonomic difference between the two operation setups the movements of the surgeon's vertebral column were analyzed in a crossover study. METHODS: The posture of the surgeon's vertebral column was recorded intraoperatively using an electromagnetic motion-tracking system with three sensors attached to the head and to the trunk at the levels of Th1 and S1. A three-dimensional posture analysis of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine was performed to evaluate four surgeons removing a gallbladder in the French and American position. The body angles assessed were flexion/extension of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine, axial rotation of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine, lateroflexion of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine, and the orientation of the head in the sagittal plane. For each body angle, the mean, the percentage of operation time within an ergonomic acceptable range, and the relative frequencies were calculated and compared. RESULTS: No statistical difference was observed in the mean body angles or in the percentages of operation time within an acceptable range between the French and the American position. The relative frequencies of the body angles might indicate a trend toward slight thoracolumbar flexion in the French position. CONCLUSION: In a modern dedicated minimally invasive surgery suite, the body posture of the neck and trunk and the orientation of the head did not differ significantly between the French and American position.