Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0.

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated. Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients. Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

Continuous erector spinae plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized open-label non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The evolving surgical techniques in thoracoscopic surgery necessitate the exploration of anesthesiological techniques. This study aimed to investigate whether incorporating a continuous erector spinae plane (ESP) block into a multimodal analgesia regimen is non-inferior to continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in terms of quality of postoperative recovery for patients undergoing elective unilateral video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label non-inferiority trial between July 2020 and December 2022. Ninety patients were randomly assigned to receive either continuous ESP block or TEA. The primary outcome parameter was the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score, measured before surgery as a baseline and on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2. Secondary outcome parameters included pain scores, length of hospital stay, morphine consumption, nausea and vomiting, itching, speed of mobilization, and urinary catheterization. RESULTS: Analysis of the primary outcome showed a mean QoR-15 difference between the groups ESP block versus TEA of 1 (95% CI -9 to -12, p=0.79) on day 0, -1 (95% CI -11 to -8, p=0.81) on day 1 and -2 (95% CI -14 to -11, p=0.79) on day 2. CONCLUSIONS: The continuous ESP block is non-inferior to TEA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NL6433).

Better stoma care using the Stoma App: does it help? A first randomized double-blind clinical trial on the effect of mobile healthcare on quality of life in stoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a stoma significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Coping with this new situation can be difficult, which may result in a variety of physical and psychosocial problems. It is essential to provide adequate guidance to help patients cope with their stoma, as this positively influences self-efficacy in return. Higher self-efficacy reduces psychosocial problems increasing patient's quality of life. This study investigates whether a new mobile application, the Stoma App, improves quality of life. And if personalized guidance, timed support, and peer contact offered as an in-app surplus makes a difference. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2021 and April 2023. Patients aged > 18 years undergoing ileostomy or colostomy surgery, in possession of a compatible smartphone were included. The intervention group received the full version of the app containing personalized and time guidance, peer support, and generic (non-personalized) stoma-related information. The control group received a restricted version with only generic information. Primary outcome was stoma quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychological adaption, complications, re-admittance, reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The intervention version of the app was used by 96 patients and the control version by 112 patients. After correction for confounding, the intervention group reported a significant 3.1-point improvement in stoma-related quality of life one month postoperatively (p = 0.038). On secondary outcomes, no significant improvements could be retrieved of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Stoma App improves the quality of life of stoma patients. Peer support and personalized guidance are of significant importance in building self-efficacy. It is to be recommended to implement Stoma app-freely available software qualifying as a medical device-in standard stoma care pathways for the benefits of both patients and healthcare providers.

Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis: Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial.Background:Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. RESULTS: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. CONCLUSIONS: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.

2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis: a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis is unclear. The increasing global threat of antimicrobial resistance warrants restrictive antibiotic use, which could also reduce side-effects, length of hospital stay, and costs. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, patients with complex appendicitis (aged ≥8 years) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendicectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre, and treating physicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. The main outcome was the absolute risk difference (95% CI) in the primary endpoint, adjusted for age and severity of appendicitis, with a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. Outcome assessment was based on electronic patient records and a telephone consultation 90 days after appendicectomy. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL5946. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2017, and June 3, 2021, 13 267 patients were screened and 1066 were randomly assigned, 533 to each group. 31 were excluded from intention-to-treat analysis of the 2-day group and 30 from the 5-day group owing to errors in recruitment or consent. Appendicectomy was done laparoscopically in 955 (95%) of 1005 patients. The telephone follow-up was completed in 664 (66%) of 1005 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 (10%) of 502 patients analysed in the 2-day group and 41 (8%) of 503 patients analysed in the 5-day group (adjusted absolute risk difference 2·0%, 95% CI -1·6 to 5·6). Rates of complications and re-interventions were similar between trial groups. Fewer patients had adverse effects of antibiotics in the 2-day group (45 [9%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (112 [22%] of 503 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·344, 95% CI 0·237 to 0·498). Re-admission to hospital was more frequent in the 2-day group (58 [12%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (29 [6%] of 503 patients; OR 2·135, 1·342 to 3·396). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: 2 days of postoperative intravenous antibiotics for complex appendicitis is non-inferior to 5 days in terms of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days, based on a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. These findings apply to laparoscopic appendicectomy conducted in a well resourced health-care setting. Adopting this strategy will reduce adverse effects of antibiotics and length of hospital stay. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Oncological Safety and Potential Cost Savings of Routine vs Selective Histopathological Examination After Appendectomy: Results of the Multicenter, Prospective, Cross-Sectional FANCY Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy. BACKGROUND: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €725,400 per 10,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit.

Postoperative Antibiotics and Time to Reach Discharge Criteria after Appendectomy for Complex Appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative antibiotic treatment is indicated for 3-5 days following appendectomy for complex appendicitis. However, meeting discharge criteria may allow for safe discontinuation of antibiotics and discharge. This study assessed the association between time to reach discharge criteria and duration of postoperative antibiotic use and length of stay. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study including patients who underwent appendectomy for complex appendicitis and received postoperative antibiotics for >24 h. Main outcome measures were time to reach discharge criteria, duration of postoperative antibiotic use, length of hospital stay, and postoperative infectious complications. Discharge criteria were defined as absence of fever (temperature ≤38°C) for 24 h, ability to tolerate oral intake, and pain controlled by oral analgesics. RESULTS: Between May 2014 and January 2015, 124 patients were included. Time to reach discharge criteria was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1-3). Patients received postoperative antibiotics and were in hospital for a median of 5 (IQR 3-5) and 5 (IQR 4-6) days, respectively. Infectious complications occurred in 12% and did not differ between patients reaching discharge criteria before or after 2 postoperative days. DISCUSSION: Discharge criteria were met by a median of 2 days after appendectomy for complex appendicitis. This suggests that postoperative antibiotics duration and thereby hospital stay can be reduced. In daily practice, prescribed antibiotics are not reduced in total days given. Prospective studies that evaluate limited postoperative antibiotic use, based on these criteria, are necessary.

Accuracy of imaging in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis in daily clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Radiologic imaging can accurately diagnose acute appendicitis, but little is known about its discriminatory capacity between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the accuracy of imaging in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: Data was used from the prospective, nationwide, observational SNAPSHOT appendicitis database, including patients with suspected acute appendicitis who were planned for an appendectomy. Usage of ultrasound (US), CT, MRI or a combination was recorded. Radiological reports were used to group for complicated or uncomplicated appendicitis. The reference standard was based on operative and pathological findings. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy results per imaging modality and for the subgroups age, BMI, and sex. RESULTS: Preoperative imaging was performed in 1964 patients. In 1434 patients (73%), only US was used; in 109 (6%) patients, only CT was used; and 421 (21%) patients underwent US followed by CT or MRI. Overall, imaging workup as practiced, following the national guideline, had a poor sensitivity for complicated appendicitis of only 35%, although specificity was as high as 93%. For US, accuracy for complicated appendicitis was higher in children than in adults; sensitivity 41.2% vs. 26.4% and specificity 94.6% vs. 93.4%, respectively, p = 0.003. For relevant subgroups such as age, sex and BMI, no other differences in the discriminatory performance were found. CONCLUSION: A diagnostic workup with stepwise imaging, using a conditional CT or MRI strategy, poorly discriminates between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis in daily practice.

Daytime versus Nighttime in Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients with appendicitis presenting at nighttime. It is hypothesized that patients presented at night more frequently have a complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis and therefore develop more postoperative complications. METHODS: In this study data were used from the nationwide, prospective SNAPSHOT study appendicitis, including 1975 patients undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis. This study included only adults. Two primary outcomes were defined: (A) The proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and (B) the proportion of patients with a complication postoperatively presenting during daytime versus nighttime period. Analysis for both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was performed, and a multivariate model was used to correct for baseline characteristics and time to surgery. RESULTS: In total, 1361 adult patients with appendicitis were analyzed. Both at nighttime and at daytime, 34% had complicated appendicitis. In patients presenting in the daytime, 12.1% developed a postoperative complication versus 18.6% for presentation at night (p = 0.008). In a multivariate analysis, the risk for a postoperative complication when presenting at night was significantly increased (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.14-2.66, p = 0.01). Surgery within eight hours after presentation does not lower this risk (adjusted OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.97-1.95, p = 0.078). CONCLUSION: Complicated appendicitis is seen as frequently during the day as at nighttime. For patients who present at nighttime with acute appendicitis, the risk of a postoperative complication is higher compared with a presentation at daytime. In multivariate analysis, nighttime presentation but not surgery within 8 h after presentation is independently associated with postoperative complication risk.

Optimising diagnostics to discriminate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: a prospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence is showing that complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis are two different entities that may be treated differently. A correct diagnosis of the type of appendicitis is therefore essential. The Scoring system of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) combines clinical, laboratory and imaging findings. The SAS rules out complicated appendicitis in 95% (negative predictive value, NPV) and detects 95% (sensitivity) of patients with complicated appendicitis in adults suspected of acute appendicitis. However, this scoring system has not yet been validated externally. In this study, we aim to provide a prospective external validation of the SAS in a new cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. We will optimise the score when necessary. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SAS will be validated in 795 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis confirmed by imaging. Data will be collected prospectively in multiple centres. The predicted diagnosis based on the SAS score will be compared with the combined surgical and histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for ruling out complicated appendicitis will be calculated. If the SAS does not reach a sensitivity and NPV of 95% in its present form, the score will be optimised. After optimisation, a second external validation will be performed in a new group of 328 patients. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical perspective of the treating physician for differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and the patient's preferences for different treatment options will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference W19_416 # 19.483). Because of the observational nature of this study, the study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals. This protocol is submitted for publication before analysis of the results.

Multicenter cohort study on the presentation and treatment of acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Current studies have demonstrated conflicting results regarding surgical care for acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to assess trends in diagnosis as well as treatment of acute appendicitis in the Netherlands during the first and second COVID-19 infection wave. METHODS: All consecutive patients that had an appendectomy for acute appendicitis in nine hospitals from January 2019 to December 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies for acute appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included time between onset of symptoms and hospital admission, proportion of complex appendicitis, postoperative length of stay and postoperative infectious complications. Outcomes were compared between the pre-COVID group and COVID group. RESULTS: A total of 4401 patients were included. The mean weekly rate of appendectomies during the COVID period was 44.0, compared to 40.9 in the pre-COVID period. The proportion of patients with complex appendicitis and mean postoperative length of stay in days were similar in the pre-COVID and COVID group (respectively 35.5% vs 36.8%, p = 0.36 and 2.0 ± 2.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.6, p = 0.93). There were no differences in postoperative infectious complications. A computed tomography scan was used more frequently as a diagnostic tool after the onset of COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID (13.8% vs 9.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in number of appendectomies, proportion of complex appendicitis, postoperative length of stay or postoperative infectious complications before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A CT scan was used more frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safety and economic analysis of selective histopathology following cholecystectomy: multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional FANCY study.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate concerning the necessity of routine histopathological examination following cholecystectomy. In order to reduce the pathology workload and save costs, a selective approach has been suggested, but evidence regarding its oncological safety is lacking. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all gallbladders removed for gallstone disease or cholecystitis were systematically examined by the surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities indicative of malignancy. Before sending all specimens to the pathologist, the surgeon judged whether histopathological examination was indicated. The main outcomes were the number of patients with hypothetically missed malignancy with clinical consequences (upper limit two-sided 95 per cent c.i. below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination. RESULTS: Twenty-two (2.19:1000) of 10 041 specimens exhibited malignancy with clinical consequences. In case of a selective policy, surgeons would have held back 7846 of 10041 (78.1 per cent) gallbladders from histopathological examination. Malignancy with clinical consequences would have been missed in seven of 7846 patients (0.89:1000, upper limit 95% c.i. 1.40:1000). No patient benefitted from the clinical consequences, while two were harmed (futile additional surgery). Of 15 patients in whom malignancy with clinical consequences would have been diagnosed, one benefitted (residual disease radically removed), two potentially benefitted (palliative systemic therapy), and four experienced harm (futile additional surgery). Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €703 500 per 10 000 patients. CONCLUSION: Selective histopathological examination following cholecystectomy is oncologically safe and could reduce pathology workload, costs, and futile re-resections.

Re-Assessment in Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis.

Background: The effect of diagnosing appendicitis at re-assessment on post-operative outcomes is not clear. This study aims to compare patients diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation versus patients who were diagnosed at re-assessment. Patients and Methods: Data from the Dutch SNAPSHOT appendicitis collaborative was used. Patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy were included. Effects of diagnosis at re-assessment were compared with diagnosis at initial presentation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate. Results: Of 1,832 patients, 245 (13.4%) were diagnosed at re-assessment. Re-assessed patients had a post-operative complication rate comparable to those diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation (15.1% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.29) and no substantial difference was found in the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis (27.9% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.07). For patients with complicated appendicitis, more post-operative complications were seen if diagnosed at re-assessment than if diagnosed initially (38.2% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.006). Conclusions: For patients in whom appendicitis was not diagnosed at first presentation, but at re-assessment, both the proportion of complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate were comparable to those who were diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation. However, re-assessed patients with complicated appendicitis encountered more post-operative complications.

[A woman with a large tumor in the thorax]. / Een vrouw met een grote tumor in de thorax.

Myoepithelial tumors are described very rarely in the thorax. We report a case of such a tumor. A 64 year old female presented with shortness of breath. A CT-scan was performed which showed a giant tumor occupying the left hemithorax. Thoracotomy with excision of the myoepithelial tumor was performed.

Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health protection programme for the prevention of surgical site infections after elective abdominal surgery (EPOCH): study protocol of a randomised controlled, multicentre, superiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common postoperative complication. During the development of the new WHO guidelines on SSI prevention, also in the Netherlands was concluded that perioperative care could be optimised beyond the current standard practice. We selected a limited set of readily available, cheap and evidence-based interventions from these new guidelines that are not part of standard practice in the Netherlands and formulated an Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health bundle (EPOCH). Here, we describe the protocol for an open-label, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial to test the effect of the EPOCH bundle added to (national) standard care in comparison to standard care alone on the incidence of SSI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EPOCH consists of intraoperative high fractional inspired oxygen (0.80); goal-directed fluid therapy; active preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative warming; perioperative glucose control and treatment of severe hyperglycaemia (>10 mmoll-1) and standardised surgical site handling. Patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery with an incision larger than 5 cm are eligible for inclusion. Participants are randomised daily, 1:1 according to variable block sizes, and stratified per participating centre to either EPOCH added to standard care or standard care only. The primary endpoint will be SSI incidence according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition within 30 days as part of routine clinical follow-up. Four additional questionnaires will be sent out over the course of 90 days to capture disability and costs. Other secondary endpoints include anastomotic leakage, incidence of incisional hernia, serious adverse events, hospital readmissions, length of stay and cost effectiveness. Analysis of the primary endpoint will be on an intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference 2015_121). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and summaries shared with stakeholders. This protocol is published before analysis of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered in the Dutch Trial Register: NL5572.

Postoperative pain after lobectomy: robot-assisted, video-assisted and open thoracic surgery.

Surgical resection is the optimal procedure for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Open thoracotomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) are different surgical modalities with possible different outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze differences in outcome with a focus on postoperative pain. Patients undergoing lobectomy at the Maasstad Hospital in 2015 and 2016 were included. Postoperative pain was scored according to the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Additionally, duration of chest tube drainage and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), hospital length of stay and type of surgery were assessed. Lobectomy was performed in 57 patients. There was no significant difference in type of surgery, age, gender, right-sided surgery, postoperative NRS scores, duration of chest tube drainage and epidural anesthesia, and hospital length of stay (p > 0.05). Operative time for RATS was significantly longer (p = 0.002). Postoperative pain scores and other outcomes did not differ between the three different modalities in surgery for NSCLC. In the future, more minimally invasive surgery will be used in pulmonary surgery with thoracotomy as a safe alternative in selected cases. Future studies have to demonstrate if RATS will overcome the differences concerning cost-effectiveness over VATS.

Discrepancies between Intraoperative and Histological Evaluation of the Appendix in Acute Appendicitis.

PURPOSE: To identify discrepancies between intraoperative and histological evaluations of the appendix in acute appendicitis and to evaluate the effect on surgical outcome. METHODS: Data was used from our previous multicentre, prospective, cohort study of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Appendices were scored during intraoperative and histological evaluation as uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis. Primary outcome was percentage of concordance between intraoperative and histological evaluation. Secondary outcomes were (infectious) postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, hospital re-admission and re-intervention rate, all within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were included. In 65.7% (1215/1850) of the appendices, the intraoperative evaluation was uncomplicated and in 34.3% (635/1850), complicated appendicitis. Patients with uncomplicated appendicitis had a postoperative course with significantly less postoperative complications (7.2% vs 24.3%), a shorter length of hospital stay (2 vs 5 days) and a lower re-admission (4.2% vs 9.6%) and re-intervention rate (1.1% vs 4.3%) than intraoperative complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001). In 93.5% (1136/1215) of the intraoperative uncomplicated patients and in 46.6% (296/635) of the intraoperative complicated patients, there was an agreement with pathology (Kappa 0.45). In 23.9% (81/339) of patients with intraoperative complicated and histological uncomplicated appendicitis, a postoperative complication was observed, which was similar to the postoperative complication rate of complicated appendicitis both on intraoperative and histological evaluation (24.7% (73/296)). CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderate agreement between a surgeon and pathologist in diagnosing patients with complicated appendicitis. However, the intraoperative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis was significantly associated with postoperative complications. Routine histological evaluation should be preserved for excluding malignancies in suspect appendices.

Safety and cost analysis of selective histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy (FANCY study): protocol and statistical analysis plan of a prospective observational multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION: Routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy has significant financial implications and comprises a substantial portion of the pathologists' workload, while the incidence of unexpected pathology is low. The aim of the selective histopathological examination Following AppeNdicectomy and CholecystectomY (FANCY) study is to investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination based on macroscopic assessment performed by the surgeon. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a Dutch multicentre prospective observational study, in which removed appendices and gallbladders will be systematically assessed by the operating surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for malignant neoplasms. After visual inspection and digital palpation of the removed specimen, the operating surgeon will report whether macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for a malignant neoplasm are present, and if he or she believes additional microscopic examination by the pathologist is indicated. Regardless of the surgeon's assessment, all specimens will be sent for histopathological examination. In this way, routine histopathological examination can be compared with a hypothetical situation in which specimens are routinely examined by surgeons and only sent to the pathologist on indication. The two main outcomes are oncological safety and potential cost savings of a selective policy. Oncological safety of selective histopathological examination will be assessed by calculating the number of patients in whom a histopathological diagnosis of an appendiceal neoplasm or gallbladder cancer with clinical consequences benefitting the patient would have been missed. A cost analysis will be performed to quantify the potential cost savings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, which decided that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act is not applicable. In all participating centres, approval for execution of the FANCY study has been obtained from the local Institutional Review Board before the start of inclusion of patients. The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Guidelines will be revised according to the findings of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03510923.

Postoperative Outcomes of Patients With Nonperforated Gangrenous Appendicitis: A National Multicenter Prospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the use of postoperative antibiotics for nonperforated gangrenous appendicitis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of postoperative infectious complications and the effect of postoperative antibiotic use among patients with nonperforated gangrenous appendicitis. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study conducted during 2 months. SETTINGS: A national multicenter observational study was conducted in 62 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: All of the consecutive patients who had surgery for suspected acute appendicitis were included. Patients were excluded if no appendectomy was performed or appendectomy was performed for pathology other than acute appendicitis. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Type of appendicitis was categorized as phlegmonous, gangrenous, or perforated. The primary end point was the rate of infectious complications (intra-abdominal abscess and surgical site infection) within 30 days after appendectomy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of infectious complications. RESULTS: A total of 1863 patients were included: 1321 (70.9%) with phlegmonous appendicitis, 181 (9.7%) with gangrenous appendicitis, and 361 (19.4%) with perforated appendicitis. Infectious complications were more frequent in patients with gangrenous versus phlegmonous appendicitis (7.2% vs 3.8%; p = 0.03). This association was no longer statistically significant in multivariable analysis (OR = 1.09 (95% CI, 0.49-2.44)). There was no significant difference in infectious complications between ≤24 hours (n = 57) of postoperative antibiotics compared with >24 hours (n = 124; 3.6% vs 8.9%; p = 0.35) in patients with gangrenous appendicitis. LIMITATIONS: Possible interobserver variability in the intraoperative classification of appendicitis was a study limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nonperforated gangrenous appendicitis are at higher risk of infectious complications than patients with phlegmonous appendicitis, yet gangrenous disease is not an independent risk factor. Postoperative antibiotic use over 24 hours was not associated with decreased infectious complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A1000. RESULTADOS POSTOPERATORIOS DE PACIENTES CON APENDICITIS GANGRENOSA NO PERFORADA: UN ANÁLISIS DE COHORTE PROSPECTIVO MULTICÉNTRICO NACIONAL:: Existe controversia sobre el uso de antibióticos postoperatorios para la apendicitis gangrenosa no perforada.El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la tasa de complicaciones infecciosas postoperatorias y el efecto del uso de antibióticos postoperatorios en pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa no perforada.Estudio de cohorte prospectivo realizado durante dos meses.Estudio observacional multicéntrico nacional en 62 hospitales holandeses.Todos los pacientes consecutivos sometidos a cirugía por sospecha de apendicitis aguda. Los pacientes fueron excluidos si no se realizó una apendicectomía o si se realizó una apendicectomía para otra patología que no fuera la apendicitis aguda.El tipo de apendicitis se clasificó como flegmonosa, gangrenosa o perforada. El criterio de valoración primario fue la tasa de complicaciones infecciosas (absceso intraabdominal e infección en el sitio quirúrgico) dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la apendicectomía. Se realizaron análisis de regresión logística univariables y multivariables para identificar predictores de complicaciones infecciosas.Se incluyeron un total de 1863 pacientes: 1321 (70,9%) con apendicitis flegmonosa, 181 (9,7%) con apendicitis gangrenosa y 361 (19,4%) con apendicitis perforada. Las complicaciones infecciosas fueron más frecuentes en pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa frente a flegmonosa (7,2% frente a 3,8%, p = 0,03). Esta asociación ya no fue estadísticamente significativa en el análisis multivariable (OR 1,09; IC del 95%: 0,49 a 2,44). No hubo diferencias significativas en las complicaciones infecciosas entre ≤ 24 h (n = 57) de los antibióticos postoperatorios en comparación con> 24 h (n = 124) (3,6% vs. 8,9%, p = 0,35) en pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa.Posible variabilidad interobservador en la clasificación intraoperatoria de la apendicitis.Los pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa no perforada tienen un mayor riesgo de complicaciones infecciosas que los pacientes con apendicitis flegmonosa, aunque la enfermedad gangrenosa no es un factor de riesgo independiente. El uso de antibióticos postoperatorios durante 24 horas no se asoció con una disminución de las complicaciones infecciosas. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A1000.

Predicting Symptom Relief After Reoperation for Suspected Internal Herniation After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Internal herniation (IH) is one of the most common long-term complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Diagnosis of IH may be difficult, and not all patients with suspected IH will have full relief of symptoms after closure of both mesenteric defects. OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible predictive factors for relief of symptoms in patients with suspected IH. METHODS: All patients that underwent reoperation for (suspected) IH after LRYGB from June 2009 to December 2016 were retrospectively evaluated in this multicentre cohort study. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictive factors for pain relief after closure of the mesenteric defects. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients underwent laparoscopy for (suspected) IH during the study period. The median interval between LRYGB and reoperation was 18.3 ± 19.0 months. In 40.2% of cases, IH was identified on computed tomography (CT), and IH was objectified during surgery in 61.1%. Postoperative symptom relief was observed in 146 patients (77.2%). For patients in which IH was present during surgery, 82.8% had relief of pain postoperatively, as compared to 68.5% for those procedures in which no IH was found. The only significant predictor for postoperative pain relief was a swirl sign on CT (OR 4.24, 95%CI 1.63-11.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief after closure of the mesenteric defects for IH remains unpredictable. A positive CT for IH was a predictive factor for symptom relief after reoperation for (suspected) IH after LRYGB. However, many patients benefit from closure of the mesenteric defects, irrespective of perioperative presence of IH.