Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundOperating room planning is a complex task as pre-operative estimations of procedure duration have a limited accuracy. This is due to large variations in the course of procedures. Therefore, information about the progress of procedures is essential to adapt the daily operating room schedule accordingly. This information should ideally be objective, automatically retrievable and in real-time. Recordings made during endoscopic surgeries are a potential source of progress information. A trained observer is able to recognize the ongoing surgical phase from watching these videos. The introduction of deep learning techniques brought up opportunities to automatically retrieve information from surgical videos. The aim of this study was to apply state-of-the art deep learning techniques on a new set of endoscopic videos to automatically recognize the progress of a procedure, and to assess the feasibility of the approach in terms of performance, scalability and practical considerations.MethodsA dataset of 33 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC) and 35 total laparoscopic hysterectomies (TLH) was used. The surgical tools that were used and the ongoing surgical phases were annotated in the recordings. Neural networks were trained on a subset of annotated videos. The automatic recognition of surgical tools and phases was then assessed on another subset. The scalability of the networks was tested and practical considerations were kept up.ResultsThe performance of the surgical tools and phase recognition reached an average precision and recall between 0.77 and 0.89. The scalability tests showed diverging results. Legal considerations had to be taken into account and a considerable amount of time was needed to annotate the datasets.ConclusionThis study shows the potential of deep learning to automatically recognize information contained in surgical videos. This study also provides insights in the applicability of such a technique to support operating room planning.

International guidelines advise laparoscopic cholecystectomy to treat symptomatic, uncomplicated gallstones. Usual care regarding cholecystectomy is associated with practice variation and persistent post-cholecystectomy pain in 10–41% of patients. We aimed to compare the non-inferiority of a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection with usual care to assess (in)efficient use of cholecystectomy. We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study in 24 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. We enrolled patients aged 18–95 years with abdominal pain and ultrasound-proven gallstones or sludge. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual care in which selection for cholecystectomy was left to the discretion of the surgeon, or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy. For the restrictive strategy, cholecystectomy was advised for patients who fulfilled all five pre-specified criteria of the triage instrument: 1) severe pain attacks, 2) pain lasting 15–30 min or longer, 3) pain located in epigastrium or right upper quadrant, 4) pain radiating to the back, and 5) a positive pain response to simple analgesics. Randomisation was done with an online program, implemented into a web-based application using blocks of variable sizes, and stratified for centre (academic versus non-academic and a high vs low number of patients), sex, and body-mass index. Physicians and patients were masked for study-arm allocation until after completion of the triage instrument. The primary, non-inferiority, patient-reported endpoint was the proportion of patients who were pain-free at 12 months' follow-up, analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. A 5% non-inferiority margin was chosen, based on the estimated clinically relevant difference. Safety analyses were also done in the intention-to treat population. This trial is registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4022. Between Feb 5, 2014, and April 25, 2017, we included 1067 patients for analysis: 537 assigned to usual care and 530 to the restrictive strategy. At 12 months' follow-up 298 patients (56%; 95% CI, 52·0–60·4) were pain-free in the restrictive strategy group, compared with 321 patients (60%, 55·6–63·8) in usual care. Non-inferiority was not shown (difference 3·6%; one-sided 95% lower CI −8·6%; pnon-inferiority=0·316). According to a secondary endpoint analysis, the restrictive strategy resulted in significantly fewer cholecystectomies than usual care (358 [68%] of 529 vs 404 [75%] of 536; p=0·01). There were no between-group differences in trial-related gallstone complications (40 patients [8%] of 529 in usual care vs 38 [7%] of 536 in restrictive strategy; p=0·16) and surgical complications (74 [21%] of 358 vs 88 [22%] of 404, p=0·77), or in non-trial-related serious adverse events (27 [5%] of 529 vs 29 [5%] of 526). Suboptimal pain reduction in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain was noted with both usual care and following a restrictive strategy for selection for cholecystectomy. However, the restrictive strategy was associated with fewer cholecystectomies. The findings should encourage physicians involved in the care of patients with gallstones to rethink cholecystectomy, and to be more careful in advising a surgical approach in patients with gallstones and abdominal symptoms. The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and CZ healthcare insurance.

Background Conservative treatment of uncomplicated or mild diverticulitis usually includes antibiotic therapy. It is, however, uncertain whether patients with acute diverticulitis indeed benefit from antibiotics. In most guidelines issued by professional organizations antibiotics are considered mandatory in the treatment of mild diverticulitis. This advice lacks evidence and is merely based on experts' opinion. Adverse effects of the use of antibiotics are well known, including allergic reactions, development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and other side-effects. Methods A randomized multicenter pragmatic clinical trial comparing two treatment strategies for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. I) A conservative strategy with antibiotics: hospital admission, supportive measures and at least 48 hours of intravenous antibiotics which subsequently are switched to oral, if tolerated (for a total duration of antibiotic treatment of 10 days). II) A liberal strategy without antibiotics: admission only if needed on clinical grounds, supportive measures only. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they have a diagnosis of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis as demonstrated by radiological imaging. Only patients with stages 1a and 1b according to Hinchey's classification or \"mild\" diverticulitis according to the Ambrosetti criteria are included. The primary endpoint is time-to-full recovery within a 6-month follow-up period. Full recovery is defined as being discharged from the hospital, with a return to pre-illness activities, and VAS score below 4 without the use of daily pain medication. Secondary endpoints are proportion of patients who develop complicated diverticulitis requiring surgery or non-surgical intervention, morbidity, costs, health-related quality of life, readmission rate and acute diverticulitis recurrence rate. In a non-inferiority design 264 patients are needed in each study arm to detect a difference in time-to-full recovery of 5 days or more with a power of 85% and a confidence level of 95%. With an estimated one percent of patients lost to follow up, a total of 533 patients will be included. Conclusion A clinically relevant difference of more than 5 days in time-to-full recovery between the two treatment strategies is not expected. The liberal strategy without antibiotics and without the strict requirement for hospital admission is anticipated to be more a more cost-effective approach. Trial registration Trial registration number: NCT01111253

Both perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy improve survival in patients with resectable gastric cancer from Europe and North America. To our knowledge, these treatment strategies have not been investigated in a head to head comparison. We aimed to compare perioperative chemotherapy with preoperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. In this investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had stage IB– IVA resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma (as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer, sixth edition), with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate cardiac, bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Patients were enrolled from 56 hospitals in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, and were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computerised minimisation programme with a random element to either perioperative chemotherapy (chemotherapy group) or preoperative chemotherapy with postoperative chemoradiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy group). Randomisation was done before patients were given any preoperative chemotherapy treatment and was stratified by histological subtype, tumour localisation, and hospital. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Surgery consisted of a radical resection of the primary tumour and at least a D1+ lymph node dissection. Postoperative treatment started within 4–12 weeks after surgery. Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative 21-day cycles and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg/m2 on day 1), cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 1) or oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 on day 1), and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 14 days in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin, or 625 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 21 days in combination with epirubicin and oxaliplatin), received once every three weeks. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy in 25 fractions of 1·8 Gy, for 5 weeks, five daily fractions per week, combined with capecitabine (575 mg/m2 orally twice daily on radiotherapy days) and cisplatin (20 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each 5 weeks of radiation treatment). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. The CRITICS trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00407186; EudraCT, number 2006-004130-32; and CKTO, 2006-02. Between Jan 11, 2007, and April 17, 2015, 788 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=393) or chemoradiotherapy (n=395). After preoperative chemotherapy, 372 (95%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 369 (93%) of 395 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group proceeded to surgery, with a potentially curative resection done in 310 (79%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 326 (83%) of 395 in the chemoradiotherapy group. Postoperatively, 233 (59%) of 393 patients started chemotherapy and 245 (62%) of 395 started chemoradiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 61·4 months (IQR 43·3–82·8), median overall survival was 43 months (95% CI 31–57) in the chemotherapy group and 37 months (30–48) in the chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio from stratified analysis 1·01 (95% CI 0·84–1·22; p=0·90). After preoperative chemotherapy, in the total safety population of 781 patients (assessed together), there were 368 (47%) grade 3 adverse events; 130 (17%) grade 4 adverse events, and 13 (2%) deaths. Causes of death during preoperative treatment were diarrhoea (n=2), dihydropyrimidine deficiency (n=1), sudden death (n=1), cardiovascular events (n=8), and functional bowel obstruction (n=1). During postoperative treatment, grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 113 (48%) and 22 (9%) of 233 patients in the chemotherapy group, respectively, and in 101 (41%) and ten (4%) of 245 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, respectively. Non-febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently during postoperative chemotherapy (79 [34%] of 233) than during postoperative chemoradiotherapy (11 [4%] of 245). No deaths were observed during postoperative treatment. Postoperative chemoradiotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with postoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with adequate preoperative chemotherapy and surgery. In view of the poor postoperative patient compliance in both treatment groups, future studies should focus on optimising preoperative treatment strategies. Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs. The Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis. Nederlands Trial Register NTR2037.

ObjectiveEvaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic ileocaecal resection compared with infliximab in patients with ileocaecal Crohn’s disease failing conventional therapy.DesignA multicentre randomised controlled trial was performed in 29 centres in The Netherlands and the UK. Adult patients with Crohn’s disease of the terminal ileum who failed >3 months of conventional immunomodulators or steroids without signs of critical strictures were randomised to laparoscopic ileocaecal resection or infliximab. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol (EQ) 5D-3L Questionnaire and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated to show uncertainty.ResultsIn total, 143 patients were randomised. Mean Crohn’s disease total direct healthcare costs per patient at 1 year were lower in the resection group compared with the infliximab group (mean difference €−8931; 95% CI €−12 087 to €−5097). Total societal costs in the resection group were lower than in the infliximab group, however not statistically significant (mean difference €−5729, 95% CI €−10 606 to €172). The probability of resection being cost-effective compared with infliximab was 0.96 at a willingness to pay (WTP) of €0 per QALY gained and per point improvement in IBDQ Score. This probability increased to 0.98 at a WTP of €20 000/QALY gained and 0.99 at a WTP of €500/point of improvement in IBDQ Score.ConclusionLaparoscopic ileocaecal resection is a cost-effective treatment option compared with infliximab.Clinical trial registration numberDutch Trial Registry NTR1150; EudraCT number 2007-005042-20 (closed on 14 October 2015).

Background Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy. The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). Methods/Design In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs. Discussion The Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register NTR2037