Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a major influx of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Currently, there is limited knowledge on the long-term outcomes of COVID-19 ICU-survivors and the impact on family members. This study aimed to gain an insight into the long-term physical, social and psychological functioning of COVID-19 ICU-survivors and their family members at three- and six-months following ICU discharge. Methods: A single-center, prospective cohort study was conducted among COVID-19 ICU-survivors and their family members. Participants received questionnaires at three and six months after ICU discharge. Physical functioning was evaluated using the MOS Short-Form General Health Survey, Clinical Frailty Scale and spirometry tests. Social functioning was determined using the McMaster Family Assessment Device and return to work. Psychological functioning was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results: Sixty COVID-19 ICU-survivors and 78 family members participated in this study. Physical functioning was impaired in ICU-survivors as reflected by a score of 33.3 (IQR 16.7–66.7) and 50 (IQR 16.7–83.3) out of 100 at 3- and 6-month follow-ups, respectively. Ninety percent of ICU-survivors reported persistent symptoms after 6 months. Social functioning was impaired since 90% of COVID-19 ICU-survivors had not reached their pre-ICU work level 6 months after ICU-discharge. Psychological functioning was unaffected in COVID-19 ICU-survivors. Family members experienced worse work status in 35% and 34% of cases, including a decrease in work rate among 18.3% and 7.4% of cases at 3- and 6-months post ICU-discharge, respectively. Psychologically, 63% of family members reported ongoing impaired well-being due to the COVID-19-related mandatory physical distance from their relatives. Conclusion: COVID-19 ICU-survivors suffer from a prolonged disease burden, which is prominent in physical and social functioning, work status and persisting symptoms among 90% of patients. Family members reported a reduction in return to work and impaired well-being. Further research is needed to extend the follow-up period and study the effects of standardized rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients and their family members.

BackgroundGroin hernia management has a significant worldwide diversity with multiple surgical techniques and variable outcomes. The International guidelines for groin hernia management serve to help in groin hernia management, but the acceptance among general surgeons remains unknown. The aim of our study was to gauge the degree of agreement with the guidelines among health care professionals worldwide.MethodsForty-six key statements and recommendations of the International guidelines for groin hernia management were selected and presented at plenary consensus conferences at four international congresses in Europe, the America’s and Asia. Participants could cast their votes through live voting. Additionally, a web survey was sent out to all society members allowing online voting after each congress. Consensus was defined as > 70% agreement among all participants.ResultsIn total 822 surgeons cast their vote on the key statements and recommendations during the four plenary consensus meetings or via the web survey. Consensus was reached on 34 out of 39 (87%) recommendations, and on six out of seven (86%) statements. No consensus was reached on the use of light versus heavy-weight meshes (69%), superior cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic repair (69%), omitting prophylactic antibiotics in hernia repair, general or local versus regional anesthesia in elderly patients (55%) and re-operation in case of immediate postoperative pain (59%).ConclusionGlobally, there is 87% consensus regarding the diagnosis and management of groin hernias. This provides a solid basis for standardizing the care path of patients with groin hernias.

To describe the long-term functioning of patients who survived a COVID-19-related admission to the intensive care unit and their family members, in the physical, social, mental and spiritual domain. A single-centre, prospective cohort study with a mixed-methods design. The intensive care unit of the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands. To study functioning 12 months after intensive care discharge several measurements were used, including a standardised list of physical problems, the Clinical Frailty Scale, the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey, the McMaster Family Assessment Device, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Spiritual Needs Questionnaire, as well as open questions and interviews with survivors and their family members. A total of 56 survivors (77%) returned the 12-month questionnaire, whose median age was 62 (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 55.0–68.0). Moreover, 67 family members (66%) returned the 12-month questionnaire, whose median age was 58 (IQR: 43–66). At least one physical problem was reported by 93% of the survivors, with 22% reporting changes in their work-status. Both survivors (84%) and their family members (85%) reported at least one spiritual need. The need to feel connected with family was the strongest. The main theme was ‘returning to normal’ in the interviews with survivors and ‘if the patient is well, I am well’ in the interviews with family members. One year after discharge, both COVID-19 intensive care survivors and their family members positively evaluate their health-status. Survivors experience physical impairments, and their family members’ well-being is strongly impacted by the health of the survivor.

IntroductionChronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) represents a widely underdiagnosed and often poorly treated medical problem, affecting 10–50% of all surgical patients, exhibiting neuropathic features in 35–60%. It is hypothesised that surgery-induced tissue damage and the subsequent immune response cause sensory alterations in the early postoperative period, ultimately leading to a chronic neuropathic or nociplastic pain state. The ‘Sensory Changes and Immunological parameters in Postsurgical pain’ study (SCIP-Pain study) was designed to test this hypothesis and identify sensory alterations and changes in the immunological response that are related to the development of CPSP with neuropathic features.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes the SCIP-Pain study—an ongoing prospective observational cohort study involving 150 adult patients undergoing elective lower extremity orthopaedic surgery. Study participants complete questionnaires, undergo quantitative sensory testing (QST) and provide blood samples to assess the immunological response at various time points: before surgery, 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery. To reduce dimensionality, cluster analyses will be conducted on QST and immunological parameters. Cluster allocation, along with other preselected candidate predictors, will subsequently be used in a generalised mixed-effects model to predict CPSP with neuropathic features within 3 months after surgery as the primary outcome.Ethics and disseminationThis study received approval from the Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (protocol NL77085.041.21), as well as from all participating centres. The study results are expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences.

BackgroundDebate persists on the optimal management of incisional hernias due to paucity of accurate recurrence rates. Reoperation rates implicate a severe underestimation of the risk of a recurrence. Therefore, long-term postoperative clinic visits allowing physical examination of the abdomen are deemed necessary. However, these are time and costs consuming. Aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a new screenings method for recurrent hernias, the ‘PINCH-Phone’ (Post-INCisional-Hernia repair-Phone).MethodsThe PINCH-Phone is a telephone questionnaire. In this multicenter prospective study, the PINCH-Phone was answered by patients after incisional hernia repair. Afterwards the patients were seen at the clinic and physical examination was done to detect any recurrences.ResultsThe PINCH-Phone questions were answered by 210 patients with a median postoperative follow-up of 36 months. Fifty-six patients were seen after multiple incisional hernia repairs. In 137 patients who had replied positively to one or more questions, 28 recurrent incisional hernias were detected at physical examination. Six recurrences were noted in 73 patients who had replied negatively to all questions. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the PINCH-Phone were 82% and 38%, respectively.ConclusionThe PINCH-Phone appears a simple and valuable screenings method for recurrences after incisional hernia repair and, hence, is recommended for implementation.

In the Acknowledgments, Lars N. Jorgensen of the HerniaSurge Group was incorrectly listed as: “Lars Jorgensen, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.” The correct listing should have read: “Lars N. Jorgensen, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.”

BackgroundLaparoscopic incisional hernia repair is increasingly performed worldwide and expected to be superior to conventional open repair regarding hospital stay and quality of life (QoL). The INCisional Hernia-Trial was designed to test this hypothesis.MethodsA multicenter parallel randomized controlled open-label trial with a superiority design was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with primary or recurrent incisional hernias were randomized by computer-guided block-randomization to undergo either conventional open or laparoscopic repair. Primary endpoint was postoperative length of hospital stay in days. Secondary endpoints included QoL, complications, and recurrences. Patients were followed up for at least 5 years.ResultsHundred-and-two patients were recruited and randomized. In total, 88 patients underwent surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (44 in the open group, 44 in the laparoscopic group). Mean age was 59.5 years, gender division was equal, and BMI was 28.8 kg/m. The trial was concluded early for futility after an unplanned interim analysis, which showed that the hypothesis needed to be rejected. There was no difference in primary outcome: length of hospital stay was 3 (range 1–36) days in the open group and 3 (range 1–12) days in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.481). There were no significant between-group differences in QoL questionnaires on the short and long term. Satisfaction was impaired in the open group. Overall recurrence rate was 19%, of which 16% in the open and 23% in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.25) at a mean follow-up of 6.6 years.ConclusionsIn a randomized controlled trial, short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic incisional hernia repair were not superior to open surgery. The persisting high recurrence rates, reduced QoL, and suboptimal satisfaction warrant the need for patient’s expectation management in the preoperative process and individualized surgical management.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2808.

•Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of high quality randomized trials are the cornerstone of research evidence.•The number of systematic reviews in surgery has increased dramatically.•The quality of surgical systematic reviews is suboptimal.•Systematic reviews in minimally invasive surgery are particularly prone to bias.•Adhering to established methodological and reporting standards is essential.