Validation of life-charts documented with the personal life-chart app - a self-monitoring tool for bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Long-term monitoring in bipolar affective disorders constitutes an important therapeutic and preventive method. The present study examines the validity of the Personal Life-Chart App (PLC App), in both German and in English. This App is based on the National Institute of Mental Health's Life-Chart Method, the de facto standard for long-term monitoring in the treatment of bipolar disorders. METHODS: Methods have largely been replicated from 2 previous Life-Chart studies. The participants documented Life-Charts with the PLC App on a daily basis. Clinicians assessed manic and depressive symptoms in clinical interviews using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, clinician-rated (IDS-C) and the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) on a monthly basis on average. Spearman correlations of the total scores of IDS-C and YMRS were calculated with both the Life-Chart functional impairment rating and mood rating documented with the PLC App. 44 subjects used the PLC App in German and 10 subjects used the PLC App in English. 118 clinical interviews from the German sub-sample and 97 from the English sub-sample were analysed separately. RESULTS: The results in both sub-samples are similar to previous Life-Chart validation studies. Again statistically significant high correlations were found between the Life-Chart function rating assigned through the PLC App and well-established observer-rated methods. Again correlations were weaker for the Life-Chart mood rating than for the Life-Chart function impairment. No relevant correlation was found between the Life-chart mood rating and YMRS in the German sub-sample. CONCLUSION: This study gives further evidence for the validity of the Life-Chart method as a valid tool for the recognition of both manic and depressive episodes. Documenting Life-Charts with the PLC App (English and German) does not seem to impair the validity of patient ratings.

Use of virtual reality in port implantation to reduce perioperative anxiety and pain: protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial at a single German university hospital (VIP-trial; DRKS00028508).

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous access port implantation is commonly performed under local anaesthesia, which offers advantages such as increased patient satisfaction and resource savings compared with general anaesthesia. However, patients may experience increased perioperative stress and anxiety in the operating room setting without general anaesthesia. Virtual reality (VR) distraction or hypnosis during surgery under local anaesthesia may help patients to auditorily and visually separate from their real environment and engage with a virtual environment through hypnorelaxing guidance. Previous studies suggested that VR hypnosedation may reduce the use of sedatives or general anaesthesia, and may offer additional benefits such as reducing postoperative pain and nausea, and promoting faster patient discharge. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VIP trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing the usage of VR during port implantation with the current standard of care (local anaesthesia and analgosedation if needed). A total of 120 adult patients are included after screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent. Patients are randomised preoperatively in a 1:1 ratio to the trial groups. The main outcomes are change of perioperative anxiety and pain. Further outcomes include patient satisfaction and tolerability, perioperative analgesia and sedation, occurrence of postoperative nausea, vomiting and VR sickness symptoms, surgeon's satisfaction, procedure duration, postoperative complications until postoperative day 30 and patient willingness to hypothetically undergo port implantation again under the same conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The VIP trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Ulm University (reference number 03/22). If the intervention demonstrates that VR can effectively reduce perioperative anxiety and pain, it may become a novel standard of care to minimise the need for analgosedation or general anaesthesia in port implantation procedures and improve patient outcomes. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal in the field and will be presented at applicable conferences to ensure rigorous evaluation and access for the academic community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00028508; registration date 15 March 2022; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1275-4995.

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. METHODS: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214. Registered on 4th July 2022.

Impact of perioperative steroid administration in patients undergoing elective liver resection: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative steroid administration may improve postoperative outcomes in major abdominal surgery by reducing the systemic inflammatory response. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of perioperative steroid administration on outcomes after elective liver resection. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative steroid administration with placebo, standard of care, or no steroids with respect to postoperative outcomes, particularly postoperative complications. Two independent reviewers critically appraised the studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with ORs calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Ten RCTs comprising 930 patients were included. Perioperative steroid administration significantly reduced the overall postoperative complication rate (OR 0.61, 95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.87; P = 0.006; I2 = 26 per cent). No significant differences were shown for individual complications. Several postoperative laboratory parameters were positively affected, like total serum bilirubin (MD -0.46; 95 per cent c.i. -0.74 to -0.18; P = 0.001; I2 = 80 per cent), interleukin 6 (MD -48.99; 95 per cent c.i. -60.72 to -37.27; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent) and C-reactive protein (MD -5.20; 95 per cent c.i. -7.62 to -2.77; P < 0.001; I2 = 71 per cent). There were no signs of an increase in potential steroid-induced adverse events, namely infectious complications, thromboembolic events, or bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative steroid administration significantly reduces the overall complication rate after elective liver resection without an increased risk of adverse effects.

Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765).

INTRODUCTION: The only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy.The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00025765.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head is justified in elderly patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing elderly population is an inevitable trend worldwide in developed countries. Therefore, we aimed to assess the experience of a tertiary pancreatic center with a very homogenous population comprising only patients diagnosed with PDAC of the pancreatic head in patients older than 75 years of age compared to their younger counterparts regarding the benefit in life expectancy and tumor biological aggressiveness. METHODS: 300 patients underwent partial pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) for PDAC of the pancreatic head between 2002 and 2012 and were evaluated with regard to their co-morbidities, clinicopathological and perioperative variables, postoperative morbidity, mortality and long term survival. Therefore, two groups according to the age at the procedure (A: <75 years, n = 241, B: ≥75 years, n = 59) were designed. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups with regard to gender, performed procedure (PPPD or PD), operation time, blood loss, tumor invasiveness and grade of tumor differentiation, R-status, lymph node ratio, 30-day mortality, length of stay and adjuvant chemotherapy. Extended resections including total pancreatectomy were slightly more often performed in younger patients (p = 0.071) and trended toward a higher rate of surgical complications in patients <75 years of age (p = 0.183). A higher rate of preoperative co-morbidities in elderly patients (group B), was associated with more postoperative non-surgical complications (p = 0.002) in this group of patients. However, the median overall survival (19.2 vs. 18.4 months) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Major pancreatic surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head is justified in elderly patients. With careful patients' selection and prudent perioperative management, elderly patients will have a similar long term outcome despite the higher rate of postoperative morbidity based on non-surgical complications.