Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review.

AIM: Many long-term ostomates are 'out-of-sight' of healthcare, and it is unknown how ostomates deal with ostomy-related problems and how these problems affect their quality of life (QOL). The aim is to examine patient-related studies describing ostomy-related problems and their impact on the perceived QOL of long-term colostomates. METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were systematically searched. All studies were included in which ostomy-specific QOL was measured using validated multidimensional instruments. RESULTS: Of the 6447 citations identified, 14 prevailingly descriptive cross-sectional studies were included. Three different validated multidimensional instruments for measuring QOL in ostomates were used (EORTC C30/CR38, MCOHQOLQO, Stoma QOL Questionnaire). All studies demonstrated that living with a colostomy influences the overall QOL negatively. The ostomy-related problems described included sexual problems, depressive feelings, gas, constipation, dissatisfaction with appearance, change in clothing, travel difficulties, feeling tired and worry about noises. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, all 14 studies gave an indication of the impact of ostomy-related problems on the perceived QOL and demonstrated that a colostomy influences the QOL negatively. There is a wide range of ostomy-specific QOL scores, and there seem to be higher QOL scores in the studies where the MCOHQOLQO instrument was used. The MCOHQOLQO and the Stoma QOL Questionnaire gave the most detailed information about which ostomy-related problems were experienced. This review adds knowledge about the impact of stoma-related problems on QOL of long-term ostomates, but more research has to be conducted, to detect ostomy-related problems and especially possible care needs.

Synchronous colorectal carcinoma: a risk factor in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Synchronous colorectal carcinoma occurs in 1% to 8% of cases. There are little data on the impact of synchronous colorectal cancer on surgical treatment and short-term postoperative outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of synchronous colorectal carcinoma and their influence on short-term postoperative outcomes in comparison with solitary colorectal carcinoma. DESIGN: This was a population-based observational study. Patient and tumor characteristics, treatment patterns, and postoperative outcomes are described for patients with a solitary and synchronous colorectal carcinoma separately. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the association between synchronous colorectal carcinoma and postoperative complications in comparison with a solitary colorectal carcinoma. SETTINGS: The study included in-hospital registration for the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. PATIENTS: Patients were those with primary colorectal carcinoma from 2009 to 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severe postoperative complications, reinterventions, and 30-day mortality were measured. RESULTS: Of 25,413 patients with colorectal cancer, 884 (3.5%) had synchronous colorectal tumors. Patients with synchronous colorectal carcinoma were older and more often of male sex compared with patients with solitary colorectal carcinoma. In ≥ 35% of cases, an extended surgical procedure was conducted (n = 310). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, synchronous colorectal carcinoma was associated with a higher risk of severe postoperative complications (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63) and reinterventions (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65) compared with solitary colorectal carcinoma but not with higher 30-day mortality (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.96-1.88). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the data being self-reported. Case-mix adjustment was limited to information available in the data set, and no long-term outcome data were available. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous colorectal carcinomas are prevalent in 3.5% of patients and require a different treatment strategy in comparison with solitary colorectal carcinoma. Postoperative outcomes are unfavorable, most likely because of extensive surgery.

A combined measure of procedural volume and outcome to assess hospital quality of colorectal cancer surgery, a secondary analysis of clinical audit data.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, on the basis of past performance, those hospitals that demonstrate good outcomes in sufficient numbers to make it likely that they will provide adequate quality of care in the future, using a combined measure of volume and outcome (CM-V&O). To compare this CM-V&O with measures using outcome-only (O-O) or volume-only (V-O), and verify 2010-quality of care assessment on 2011 data. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of clinical audit data. SETTING: The Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database of 2010 and 2011, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 8911 patients (test population, treated in 2010) and 9212 patients (verification population, treated in 2011) who underwent a resection of primary colorectal cancer in 89 Dutch hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome was measured by Observed/Expected (O/E) postoperative mortality and morbidity. CM-V&O states 2 criteria; 1) outcome is not significantly worse than average, and 2) outcome is significantly better than substandard, with 'substandard care' being defined as an unacceptably high O/E threshold for mortality and/or morbidity (which we set at 2 and 1.5 respectively). RESULTS: Average mortality and morbidity in 2010 were 4.1 and 24.3% respectively. 84 (94%) hospitals performed 'not worse than average' for mortality, but only 21 (24%) of those were able to prove they were also 'better than substandard' (O/E<2). For morbidity, 42 hospitals (47%) met the CM-V&O. Morbidity in 2011 was significantly lower in these hospitals (19.8 vs. 22.8% p<0.01). No relationship was found between hospitals' 2010 performance on O-O en V-O, and the quality of their care in 2011. CONCLUSION: CM-V&O for morbidity can be used to identify hospitals that provide adequate quality and is associated with better outcomes in the subsequent year.

How attachment style and locus of control influence patients' trust in their oncologist.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients need to trust their oncologist. How the oncologist communicates probably contributes to patients' trust. Yet, patient characteristics such as their attachment style and health locus of control may influence how such communication is perceived. We examined how these personality characteristics influence trust as well as moderate the relation between oncologist communication and trust. METHODS: Eight videotaped scenarios of an oncologic consultation were created. Oncologist communication was systematically varied regarding their expressed competence, honesty and caring. Cancer patients (n = 345) were randomly assigned to view the videos and report their trust in the observed oncologist. Patients' self-reported attachment style, health locus of control and trust in their own oncologist were assessed. RESULTS: Patients with a stronger external health locus of control trusted the observed oncologist more (p < .001). Neither attachment avoidance nor attachment anxiety was related to trust in the observed oncologist. However, attachment avoidance moderated the positive effect of the oncologists' communication of caring and honesty on trust: avoidant attachment significantly diminished the effect (p < .011 and p < .044, respectively). High attachment avoidance (p = .003) and attachment anxiety (p < .001) were related to weaker trust in patients' own oncologist. DISCUSSION: Patients' attachment avoidance may hamper their trust in their own, but not necessarily in a newly observed, oncologist. As expected, patients' attachment style influences how oncologist communication influences trust, underscoring the importance of oncologists tailoring their communication to individual patients. We confirmed observational findings that patients convinced that others control their health trust their oncologist more than others.

[Improving healthcare and its manageability]. / Verbetering en beheersbaarheid van de zorg.

Healthcare in the Netherlands is facing serious challenges. With an ageing population, the consumption of healthcare is on the rise. Quality needs to go up while costs have to go down. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research estimates that healthcare costs, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, will rise from 13% in 2011 (90 billion euros) up to 31% in 2040. Clear choices need to be made in the near future; otherwise, the cost of healthcare will become prohibitive. This commentary explains why volume-directed healthcare alone is not the magic answer. Besides criteria related to process and structure, we are also in need of robust and valid data. Clinical auditing combined with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and financial data will give the additional tools needed to improve and manage healthcare.

Successful and safe introduction of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in Dutch hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in a nationwide population-based study. BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic techniques are increasingly used in colorectal cancer surgery, little is known on results outside trials. With the fast introduction of laparoscopic resection (LR), questions were raised about safety. METHODS: Of all patients who underwent an elective colorectal cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands, 93% were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Short-term outcome after LR, open resection (OR), and converted LR were compared in a generalized linear mixed model. We further explored hospital differences in LR and conversion rates. RESULTS: A total of 7350 patients, treated in 90 hospitals, were included. LR rate was 41% with a conversion rate of 15%. After adjustment for differences in case-mix, LR was associated with a lower risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.63, P < 0.01), major morbidity (odds ratio 0.72, P < 0.01), any complications (odds ratio 0.74, P < 0.01), hospital stay more than 14 days (odds ratio 0.71, P < 0.01), and irradical resections (odds ratio 0.68, P < 0.01), compared to OR. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR (P > 0.05). A large variation in LR and conversion rates among hospitals was found; however, the difference in outcome associated with operative techniques was not influenced by hospital of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands is safe and results are better in short-term outcome than open surgery, irrespective of the hospital of treatment. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR.

Uncommon cause of pneumoperitoneum.

Free intraperitoneal air is thought to be pathognomonic for perforation of a hollow viscus. Here, we present a patient with pain in the upper left quadrant, a mild fever and leukocytosis. Free air was suggested under the left diaphragm but during the explorative laparotomy no signs of gastric or diverticular perforation were seen. Further exploration and revision of the computed tomography revealed a perforated splenic abscess. Splenic abscesses are a rare clinical entity. Presenting symptoms are often non-specific and include upper abdominal pain, recurrent or persistent fever, nausea and vomiting, splenomegaly, leukocytosis and left lower chest abnormalities. Predisposing conditions can be very divergent and include depressed immunosuppressed state, metastatic or contiguous infection, splenic infarction and trauma. Splenic abscess should therefore be considered in a patient with fever, left upper abdominal pain and leukocytosis. Moreover, our case shows that splenic abscess can present in an exceptional way without clear underlying aetiology and should even be considered in the presence of free abdominal air.

Comparison of Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation without mucopexy and rubber band ligation for haemorrhoids.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Recurrences after Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation (DG-HAL) tend to occur in patients with concurrent mucosal prolapse. We retrospectively compared the results of DG-HAL and rubber band ligation (RBL) for the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2009, all patients who underwent either a DG-HAL procedure or RBL were selected. Follow-up was done by telephone using a standardised questionnaire survey to assess patient satisfaction and complaints. When recurrent disease was suspected, patients revisited the clinic for further examination and treatment. RESULTS: A total of 239 DG-HAL patients and 47 RBL patients were analysed. Sixty-seven percent in the DG-HAL group and 79% in the RBL group had an improvement in symptoms after one treatment (p=0.22). Forty-six DG-HAL patients (19%) needed a second procedure versus three patients (6%) in the RBL group (p<0.05). Cox regression analysis showed a significant difference in disease recurrence in favour of RBL (hazard ratio (HR) 3.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-12.2). Patients in the DG-HAL group with recurrent haemorrhoids had a higher incidence of mucosal prolapse. CONCLUSION: DG-HAL seems very effective in treating lower-grade haemorrhoids. In more advanced disease, recurrence occurs due to persisting mucosal prolapse. RBL seems much more effective in reducing the prolapse and the chance of recurrence.

Results of 244 consecutive patients with hemorrhoids treated with Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation.

AIM: This study was designed to determine the effect of treating hemorrhoids with the Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation (DG-HAL) procedure. METHODS: From June 2005 to March 2008, 244 consecutive hemorrhoidal patients underwent hemorroidal artery ligation performed with the DG-HAL system from AMI. All patients were evaluated postoperatively with a proctologic examination and interview. Further follow-up was performed by telephone with a standardized questionnaire. When indicated, patients revisited the clinic for further examination and treatment. RESULTS: 244 patients were treated with DG-HAL. The mean follow-up time was 18.4 months (range 1.4-37.2). Sixty-seven percent of the patients had an improvement of symptoms after one treatment. Fifty-three patients (22%) underwent a second procedure because of persisting symptoms. Thirteen patients (25%) underwent a second DG-HAL and 40 (75%) underwent rubber band ligation. In total, 69% of the patients had a good response using the DG-HAL technique. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed prolapse to be an independent risk factor for persistent symptoms (OR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.10-5.15). Patients with grades 3 and 4 hemorrhoids had a higher risk of developing recurrent disease (OR = 4.94, 95% CI 0.67-36.42). CONCLUSION: DG-HAL seems to be an effective procedure for treating low-grade hemorrhoids. A resection procedure should be the treatment for patients with recurrent disease.

The need for interval appendectomy after resolution of an appendiceal mass questioned.

BACKGROUND: Our current treatment of an appendiceal mass is initially conservative, followed by an interval appendectomy. The necessity of this routine interval appendectomy is debatable. A study was conducted to evaluate whether surgical factors and pathological features of the excised appendices support interval appendectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study at the University Hospital Groningen and the Deventer Ziekenhuis. All patients diagnosed with an appendiceal mass in the period January 1991 to January 1997 were identified using the hospital database. The medical records of all these patients (n = 233, 108 M, 125 F) were reviewed. The clinical course of the appendiceal mass patients was split up into three distinct episodes: initial diagnosis and treatment of the appendiceal mass, the interval period and the interval appendectomy. Presenting symptoms, findings at clinical examination and additional imaging (ultrasound) were registered, as well as the course of the primary hospitalisation, the interval period, and the interval appendectomy. Results of histological examination of all resected specimens were reviewed. RESULTS: It was found that clinical findings alone were not specific enough to diagnose an appendiceal mass; 47% had a palpable abdominal mass and the median temperature was 38.2 degrees C ranging from 36 to 40.5 degrees C. Ultrasound examination was done in 69% of patients and showed an appendiceal mass in 72%. During the interval period, 4 patients presented with an appendiceal mass needing drainage, and 3 with acute appendicitis requiring emergency appendectomy. At interval appendectomy, histological examination of resection specimen showed a normal appendix without signs of previous inflammation in 30% of cases. In addition, complications due to interval appendectomy were seen in 18% of patients, including sepsis, bowel perforation, small bowel ileus, and various wound abscesses. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that when causes for the appendiceal mass other than appendicitis are excluded, interval appendectomy seems unnecessary in patients who respond well to initial conservative treatment.