Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking. To perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines. After removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs. This is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs. Registration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.

Background Patient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking. Objective To perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines. Results After removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs. Conclusion This is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs. Trial Registration Registration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.

Background Patients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. The aim of this trial was to determine standard of care and gain evidence of intra- and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing relaparotomy compared to primary laparotomy. Methods In this single-center controlled clinical trial, adult patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via relaparotomy or primary laparotomy were consecutively screened for eligibility. The perioperative course was monitored prospectively in five study visits during hospital stay and one study visit 1 year after surgery. Intraoperative standards, short and long-term outcomes were statistically explored at a level of significance of 5%. Results A total of 131 patients with relaparotomy and 50 patients with primary laparotomy were analyzed. In the relaparotomy group, the access to the abdomen took longer (23.5 min vs. 8.8 min; p  = < 0.001) and the peritoneal adhesion index was higher (10.8 vs. 0.4; p  = < 0.001). Inadvertent enterotomies were more frequent in the relaparotomy group (relaparotomy 0.3 versus primary laparotomy: 0.0; p  = 0.002). The overall comprehensive complication index and rates of surgical site infection and wound dehiscence with evisceration were not different between the two groups. At long-term follow-up, rates of incisional hernia did not differ (relaparotomy: n  = 12/104 (11.5%); primary laparotomy: n  = 7/35 (20.0%); p  = 0.208). Discussion In this first prospective comparison of relaparotomy with primary laparotomy, inadvertent enterotomies were more frequent in the relaparotomy group. However, contrary to previous retrospective studies, the risk of complications and incisional hernias was not increased compared to primary laparotomy. Trial Registration Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien ( www.germanctr.de ): DRKS00013001

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

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective method to treat neuropathic pain; however, it is challenging to compare different stimulation modalities in an individual patient, and thus, it is largely unknown which of the many available SCS modalities is most effective. Specifically, electrodes leading out through the skin would have to be consecutively connected to different, incompatible SCS devices and be tested over a time period of several weeks or even months. The risk of wound infections for such a study would be unacceptably high and blinding of the trial difficult. The PARS-trial seizes the capacity of a new type of wireless SCS device, which enables a blinded and systematic intra-patient comparison of different SCS modalities over extended time periods and without increasing wound infection rates. Methods The PARS-trial is designed as a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled multi-center crossover study. It will compare the clinical effectiveness of the three most relevant SCS paradigms in individual patients. The trial will recruit 60 patients suffering from intractable neuropathic pain of the lower extremities, who have been considered for SCS therapy and were already implanted with a wireless SCS device prior to study participation. Over a time period of 35 days, patients will be treated consecutively with three different SCS paradigms (“burst,” “1 kHz,” and “1.499 kHz”) and placebo stimulation. Each SCS paradigm will be applied for 5 days with a washout period of 70 h between stimulation cycles. The primary endpoint of the study is the level of pain self-assessment on the visual analogue scale after 5 days of SCS. Secondary, exploratory endpoints include self-assessment of pain quality (as determined by painDETECT questionnaire), quality of life (as determined by Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), anxiety perception (as determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and physical restriction (as determined by the Oswestry Disability Index). Discussion Combining paresthesia-free SCS modalities with wireless SCS offers a unique opportunity for a blinded and systematic comparison of different SCS modalities in individual patients. This trial will advance our understanding of the clinical effectiveness of the most relevant SCS paradigms. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00018929 . Registered on 14 January 2020.

Background The placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains has been common practice in abdominal operations including pancreatic surgery. The PANDRA trial showed that the omission of drains following pancreatic head resection was non-inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reinterventions and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. The aim of the present PANDRA II trial is to evaluate the clinical outcome with versus without prophylactic drain placement after distal pancreatectomy. Methods The PANDRA II trial is a mono-center, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial with two parallel study groups. In the control group at least one passive intra-abdominal drain is placed at the pancreatic resection margin. In the experimental group no drains are placed. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) measuring all postoperative complications within 90 days. Secondary endpoints are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula, chyle leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, reinterventions and reoperations, surgical site infection, and abdominal fascia dehiscence. Moreover, length of hospital stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the rate of readmission after discharge from hospital (up to day 90 after surgery) are assessed. We will need to analyze 252 patients to test the hypothesis that no drainage is non-inferior to drain placement in terms of the CCI (δ 7.5 points) in a one-sided t test with a one-sided level of significance of 2.5% and a power of 80%. Discussion The results of the PANDRA II trial will help to evaluate the effect of an omission of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage on the rate of complications after open or minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00013763 . Registered on 6 March 2018.

Purpose The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer. Methods This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted. Results Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences. Conclusion Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research. Trial-registration German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018.

Background Wound infection affects a considerable portion of patients after abdominal operations, increasing health care costs and postoperative morbidity and affecting quality of life. Antibacterial coating has been suggested as an effective measure to decrease postoperative wound infections after laparotomies. The INLINE metaanalysis has recently shown the superiority of a slowly absorbable continuous suture for abdominal closure; with PDS plus ® such a suture has now been made available with triclosan antibacterial coating. Methods/Design The PROUD trial is designed as a randomised, controlled, observer, surgeon and patient blinded multicenter superiority trial with two parallel groups and a primary endpoint of wound infection during 30 days after surgery. The intervention group will receive triclosan coated polydioxanone sutures, whereas the control group will receive the standard polydioxanone sutures; abdominal closure will otherwise be standardized in both groups. Statistical analysis is based on intention-to-treat population via binary logistic regression analysis, the total sample size of n = 750 is sufficient to ensure alpha = 5% and power = 80%, an interim analysis will be carried out after data of 375 patients are available. Discussion The PROUD trial will yield robust data to determine the effectiveness of antibacterial coating in one of the standard sutures for abdominal closure and potentially lead to amendment of current guidelines. The exploration of clinically objective parameters as well as quality of life holds immediate relevance for clinical management and the pragmatic trial design ensures high external validity. Trial Registration The trial protocol has been registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000390).

Patient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking. To perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9.sup.th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines. After removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs. This is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs.

BackgroundPatients undergoing relaparotomy are generally underrepresented in clinical trials, despite how common the procedure is in clinical practice. Specifically, techniques for re-do abdominal wall closure have never been evaluated in a randomised-controlled trial. The aim of this trial was to identify the optimal abdominal wall closure technique in patients undergoing relaparotomy.MethodsIn this monocentric, randomised feasibility trial, patients scheduled for elective relaparotomy were randomised to abdominal wall closure with either the small stitches technique, using Monomax® 2-0, or the large stitches technique, using PDS II® 1 loop. Patients’ postoperative courses were followed for 1 year after the index operation. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were compared at a level of significance of 5% between the two techniques.ResultsA total of 100 out of 131 patients (76.3%) were evenly randomised to the small stitches and large stitches groups. The time for abdominal wall closure did not differ between the two techniques (small stitches 27.5 ± 9.5 min versus large stitches 25.3 ± 12.4 min; p = 0.334). The overall comprehensive complication index was 14.4 ± 15.5 in the small stitches group and 19.9 ± 23.4 in the large stitches group (p = 0.168). Specifically, rates of surgical site infection (small stitches 30.0% versus large stitches 36.0%; p = 0.524) and burst abdomen (small stitches 4.0% versus large stitches 0.0%; p = 0.495) did not differ. After 1 year, incisional hernia rate was 7.5% in the small stitches group and 10.0% in the large stitches group (p > 0.999).DiscussionBoth abdominal wall closure techniques investigated in this trial were feasible in relaparotomy patients. This exploratory trial revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness or safety of the small stitches technique with Monomax® 2-0 versus the large stitches technique with PDS II® 1 loop. Therefore, surgeons should stay with their preferred suture technique in relaparotomy patients.Trial registrationDeutsches Register Klinischer Studien (www.germanctr.de): DRKS00013001