Perla J. Marang-van de Mheen

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

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

Choosing a Hospital for Surgery: The Importance of Information on Quality of Care

Objective. To assess whether patients use information on quality of care when choosing a hospital for surgery compared with more general hospital information. Methods. In this cross-sectional study in 3 Dutch hospitals, questionnaires were sent to 2122 patients who underwent 1 of 6 elective surgical procedures in 2005—2006 (aorta reconstruction [for treatment of aneurysm], cholecystectomy, colon resection, inguinal hernia repair, esophageal resection, thyroid surgery). Patients were asked which information they had used to choose this hospital and which information they intended to use if they would need similar surgical treatment in the future. Results. In total, 1329 questionnaires were available for analysis (response rate 62.6%). Most patients indicated having used the hospital’s good reputation (69.1%) and friendly hospital atmosphere (63.3%) to choose a hospital. For future choices, most patients intended to use the fact that they were already treated in that hospital (79.3%) and the hospital’s good reputation (74.1%). Regarding quality-of-care information, patients preferred a summary measure (% patients with ‘‘textbook outcome’’) over separate more detailed measures (52.1% v. 38.0%, χ2 = 291, P < 0.01). For future choices, patients intend to use more information items than in 2005—2006, both in absolute terms (9 v. 4 items, t = 38.3, P < 0.01) as relative to the total number of available items (41.3% [40.1%—42.5%] v. 29.2% [28.1%—30.2%]). Conclusion. Patients intended to use more information for future choices than they used for past choices. For future choices, most patients prefer a summary measure on quality of care over more detailed measures but seem to value that they were already treated in that hospital or a hospital’s good reputation even more.

Reduced quality of life in living kidney donors: association with fatigue, societal participation and pre-donation variables

Health related quality of life (HRQoL) of living kidney donors on average is good, but some donors experience a low HRQoL after donation. This study assessed the prevalence of reduced HRQoL and explored associations with pre‐ and post‐donation variables. 316 donors (response rate 74%) who donated a kidney between 1997 and 2009 filled in a questionnaire. HRQoL was measured using the Short‐Form 36; fatigue using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; societal participation using the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation‐Participation. Donors on average had better HRQoL than the general population. However, 12% had a reduced physical (PCS) and 18% a reduced mental (MCS) HRQoL. Donors with reduced HRQoL reported greater fatigue (P < 0.01), lower societal participation (P < 0.01) and showed a trend towards statistical significance in experiencing more donor–recipient relationship changes (P = 0.07). Prior to donation, donors with reduced PCS had a higher BMI (P < 0.05) and more often smoked (P < 0.05). Donors with reduced MCS had higher expectations (P < 0.05). Reduced HRQoL is associated with higher BMI, smoking and higher expectations prior to donation. These results may be used to develop a screening instrument to select donors at high risk for reduced HRQoL.

Decision making around living and deceased donor kidney transplantation: a qualitative study exploring the importance of expected relationship changes

BackgroundLimited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced.MethodsWe conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts.ResultsMost deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donor’s health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p = 0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced.ConclusionExpected relationship changes and concerns about the donor’s health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group.

Cell Salvage in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND Cell salvage is used to reduce allogeneic red blood-cell (RBC) transfusions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of cell salvage to reduce transfusions in THA and TKA separately, and to examine whether recent trials change the conclusions from previous meta-analyses. METHODS We searched MEDLINE through January 2013 for randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of cell salvage in THA and TKA. Trial results were extracted using standardized forms and pooled using a random-effects model. Methodological quality of the trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaborations tool for risk-of-bias assessment. RESULTS Forty-three trials (5631 patients) were included. Overall, cell salvage reduced the exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion in THA (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.85) and TKA (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.68). However, trials published in 2010 to 2012, with a lower risk of bias, showed no significant effect of cell salvage in THA (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.02) and TKA (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.31), suggesting that the treatment policy regarding transfusion may have changed over time. CONCLUSIONS Looking at all trials, cell salvage still significantly reduced the RBC exposure rate and the volume of RBCs transfused in both THA and TKA. However, in trials published more recently (2010 to 2012), cell salvage reduced neither the exposure rate nor the volume of RBCs transfused in THA and TKA, most likely explained by changes in blood transfusion management.

Effects of donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related variables on human islet isolation outcome: a systematic review.

Different factors have been reported to influence islet isolation outcome, but their importance varies between studies and are hampered by the small sample sizes in most studies. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess the impact of donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related variables on successful human islet isolation outcome. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched electronically in April 2009. All studies reporting on donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related factors relating to prepurification and postpurification islet isolation yield and proportion of successful islet isolations were selected. Seventy-four retrospective studies had sufficient data and were included in the analyses. Higher pre- and postpurification islet yields and a higher proportion of successful islet isolations were obtained when pancreata were preserved with the two-layer method rather than University of Wisconsin solution in donors with shorter cold ischemia times (CITs) [1 h longer CIT resulted in an average decline of prepurification and postpurification yields and proportion of successful isolations of 59 islet equivalents (IEQs)/g, 54 IEQs/g, and 21%, respectively]. Higher prepurification yields and higher percentage of successful islet isolations were found in younger donors with higher body mass index. Lower yields were found in donation after brain death donors compared to donation after cardiac death donors. Higher postpurification yields were found for isolation with Serva collagenase. This review identified donor-, pancreas-, and isolation-related factors that influence islet isolation yield. Standardized reports of these factors in all future studies may improve the power and identify additional factors and thereby contribute to improving islet isolation yield.

Barriers and facilitators to implement shared decision making in multidisciplinary sciatica care: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe Dutch multidisciplinary sciatica guideline recommends that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and the patient together decide on surgical or prolonged conservative treatment (shared decision making [SDM]). Despite this recommendation, SDM is not yet integrated in sciatica care. Existing literature concerning barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation mainly focuses on one discipline only, whereas multidisciplinary care may involve other barriers and facilitators, or make these more complex for both professionals and patients. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by patients and professionals for SDM implementation in multidisciplinary sciatica care.MethodsWe conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons) and three focus groups among patients (six to eight per group). The interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were classified according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The software package Atlas.ti 7.0 was used for analysis.ResultsProfessionals reported 53 barriers and 5 facilitators, and patients 35 barriers and 18 facilitators for SDM in sciatica care. Professionals perceived most barriers at the level of the organizational context, and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Patients reported most barriers and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Several barriers and facilitators correspond with barriers and facilitators found in the literature (e.g., lack of time, motivation) but also new barriers and facilitators were identified. Many of these new barriers mentioned by both professionals and patients were related to the multidisciplinary setting, such as lack of visibility, lack of trust in expertise of other disciplines, and lack of communication between disciplines.ConclusionsThis study identified barriers and facilitators for SDM in the multidisciplinary sciatica setting, by both professionals and patients. It is clear that more barriers than facilitators are perceived for implementation of SDM in sciatica care. Newly identified barriers and facilitators are related to the multidisciplinary care setting. Therefore, an effective implementation strategy of SDM in a multidisciplinary setting such as in sciatica care should focus on these barriers and facilitators.

Surgical injuries of pancreatic allografts during procurement

Marang‐van de Mheen PJ, Hilling DE, Dirkes MC, Baranski AG. Surgical injuries of pancreatic allografts during procurement. 
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 737–743.

Perceived barriers among physicians for stopping non–cost‐effective blood‐saving measures in total hip and total knee arthroplasties

Despite evidence that the blood‐saving measures (BSMs) erythropoietin (EPO) and intra‐ and postoperative blood salvage are not (cost‐)effective in primary elective total hip and knee arthroplasties, they are used frequently in Dutch hospitals. This study aims to assess the impact of barriers associated with the intention of physicians to stop BSMs.

Most Important Factors for the Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Sciatica Care: Ranking among Professionals and Patients

Introduction Due to the increasing specialization of medical professionals, patients are treated by multiple disciplines. To ensure that delivered care is patient-centered, it is crucial that professionals and the patient together decide on treatment (shared decision making (SDM)). However, it is not known how SDM should be integrated in multidisciplinary practice. This study determines the most important factors for SDM implementation in sciatica care, as it is known that a prior inventory of factors is crucial to develop a successful implementation strategy. Methods 246 professionals (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (30% response) and 155 patients (96% response) responded to an internet-based survey. Respondents ranked barriers and facilitators identified in previous interviews, on their importance using Maximum Difference Scaling. Feeding back the personal top 5 most important factors, each respondent indicated whether these factors were barriers or facilitators. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each factor. Results Professionals assigned the highest importance to: quality of professional-patient relationship (RI 4.87; CI 4.75–4.99); importance of quick recovery of patient (RI 4.83; CI 4.69–4.97); and knowledge about treatment options (RI 6.64; CI 4.53–4.74), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Professionals working in primary care had a different ranking than those working in hospital care. Patients assigned the highest importance to: correct diagnosis by professionals (barrier, RI 8.19; CI 7.99–8.38); information provision about treatment options and potential harm and benefits (RI 7.87; CI 7.65–8.08); and explanation of the professional about the care trajectory (RI 7.16; CI 6.94–7.38), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Conclusions Knowledge, information provision and a good relationship are the most important conditions for SDM perceived by both patients and professionals. These conditions are not restricted to one specific disease or health care system, because they are mostly professional or patient dependent and require healthcare professional training.