Meta-Analysis of Isolated Hepatic Perfusion and Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion as a Treatment for Uveal Melanoma Liver Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma is the most commonly occurring primary intraocular malignancy in adults, and patients have a high risk of developing metastatic disease, mostly in the liver. Isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) with melphalan is a liver-directed therapy for patients with liver metastases. Percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP), a minimally invasive technique, is available as well. PHP benefits from the fact that the procedure can be repeated and therefore possibly offers better survival. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing both techniques. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the electronic databases of Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL. A total of nine articles reporting on eight studies were included in the analysis. Individual survival data were extracted from each study. RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) was 17.1 months for IHP and 17.3 months for PHP. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.2 months for IHP and 9.6 months for PHP. The median hepatic progression-free survival was 10 months for IHP and 9.5 months for PHP. The complication rate and 30-day mortality rate were 39.1% and 5.5% for IHP and 23.8% and 1.8% for PHP. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in OS or PFS between IHP and PHP for patients with uveal melanoma liver metastases, but patients have significantly less of a risk for complications and mortality following PHP.

Correction to: One anastomosis gastric bypass vs. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.

In the original article there was a discrepancy between the XML (online) version of the article and the PDF.

One anastomosis gastric bypass vs. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Failure occurs in up to 60% of the patients that were treated with primary restrictive bariatric operations such as Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), or restrictive/metabolic operations like Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). Insufficient weight loss and weight regain are the most commonly reported reasons of failure. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure in terms of weight loss, procedure time, complication rate and morbidity. METHODS: 491 patients operated on between 2012 and 2017 for failed restrictive surgery were included in this study (OAGB (n=185) or RYGB (n=306)). Failure was defined as total weight loss (TWL) less than 25%, excess weight loss (EWL) less than 50% and/or a remaining body mass index (BMI) larger than 40 kg/m2 at two years of follow up. Primary outcome measures were %TWL and % excess BMI loss (EBMIL) at 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, reduction of comorbidity, early and late complication rate, and mortality. RESULTS: %TWL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 24.1±9.8 vs. 21.9±9.7, p = 0.023) and 24 months (mean 23.9±11.7 vs. 20.5±11.2, p = 0.023) of follow-up. %EBMIL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 69.0±44.6 vs. 60.0±30.1, p = 0.014) and 24 months (mean 68.6±51.6 vs. 56.4±35.4, p = 0.025) of follow-up. Intra-abdominal complications (leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess and perforation) occurred less frequently after revisional OAGB (1.1% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.025). Surgical intervention for biliary reflux (5.4% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) was more prevalent in the OAGB group. Surgical intervention for internal herniation (0.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002) was more prevalent in the RYGB group. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that OAGB is superior to RYGB as a remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive surgery with more weight loss and a lower early complication rate. To substantiate these findings, further research from prospective randomized controlled trials is needed.

Development of a standardized training course for laparoscopic procedures using Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Content, evaluation, and certification of laparoscopic skills and procedure training lack uniformity among different hospitals in The Netherlands. Within the process of developing a new regional laparoscopic training curriculum, a uniform and transferrable curriculum was constructed for a series of laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to determine regional expert consensus regarding the key steps for laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy using Delphi methodology. METHODS: Lists of suggested key steps for laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy were created using surgical textbooks, available guidelines, and local practice. A total of 22 experts, working for teaching hospitals throughout the region, were asked to rate the suggested key steps for both procedures on a Likert scale from 1-5. Consensus was reached with Crohnbach's α ≥ 0.90. RESULTS: Of the 22 experts, 21 completed and returned the survey (95%). Data analysis already showed consensus after the first round of Delphi on the key steps for laparoscopic appendectomy (Crohnbach's α = 0.92) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Crohnbach's α = 0.90). After the second round, 15 proposed key steps for laparoscopic appendectomy and 30 proposed key steps for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were rated as important (≥4 by at least 80% of the expert panel). These key steps were used for the further development of the training curriculum. CONCLUSION: By using the Delphi methodology, regional consensus was reached on the key steps for laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy. These key steps are going to be used for standardized training and evaluation purposes in a new regional laparoscopic curriculum.