Assessing the benefits of repeated esophagogastroduodenoscopy at a specialized center before gastric and esophageal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of gastric and esophageal cancer in Denmark is centralized in four specialized esophagogastric cancer (EGC) centers. Patients are referred after an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at a secondary healthcare facility. The EGD is repeated at the specialized EGC center before determining a surgical treatment strategy. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to investigate the quality of EGDs performed at a secondary healthcare facility and evaluate the clinical value of repeated EGD at a specialized center when determining the surgical treatment strategy. METHODS: Patients from three of the four centers, who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy with curative intent from 1 June 2016 to 1 May 2021, were included. EGD reports from the referral facilities and EGC centers were compared based on a predefined checklist. Furthermore, endoscopist experience, the time between examinations, and histology were registered. Finally, it was assessed whether the specialized EGD led to any substantial changes in surgical treatment. Baseline characteristics and differences in EGD reports were described and McNemar's chi-square test was performed. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for a change in surgical strategy. RESULTS: The study included 953 patients who underwent both an initial EGD and EGD at referral to a specialized center. In 644 cases (68%), the information from the initial EGD was considered insufficient concerning preoperative tumor information. In 113 (12%) cases, the findings in the specialized EGD would lead to a significant alteration in the surgical strategy compared with the primary EGD. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that repeated EGD at a specialized center is of clinical value and helps ensure proper surgical treatment for patients undergoing curative surgery for gastroesophageal cancer.

The Aalborg Bolt-Connected Drain (ABCD) study: a prospective comparison of tunnelled and bolt-connected external ventricular drains.

BACKGROUND: Acutely increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is frequently managed by external ventricular drainage (EVD). This procedure is life-saving but marred by a high incidence of complications. It has recently been indicated that bolt-connected external ventricular drainage (BC-EVD) compared to the standard technique of tunnelled EVD (T-EVD) may result in less complications. AIM: To prospectively sample and compare two cohorts by consecutive allocation to either BC-EVD or T-EVD from the introduction of the BC-EVD technique in our department and 12 months onward. METHODS: Patients undergoing ventriculostomy between the 1st of March 2017 and the 28th of February 2018 were considered for inclusion. The neurosurgeon on-call sovereignly set the indication and decided on EVD type (BC-EVD or T-EVD), consequently resulting in two cohorts as 3/7 senior neurosurgeons on call were open to the use of BC-EVD, while 4/7 were reluctant to use this technique. Data was continuously collected using patient records, including results of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culturing and available CT/MRI-scans. Recorded complications included CSF leakage, accidental discontinuation, placement-related intracranial haemorrhage, malfunction, migration, infection and revision. RESULTS: Forty-nine EVDs (32 T-EVDs/17 BC-EVDs) were included; 19/32 (59.4%) T-EVDs and 3/17 (17.6%) BC-EVDs were found to have complications (p = 0.007). The relative risk of complications when using T-EVD was 3.4 times that of BC-EVD. CONCLUSION: Ventriculostomy by BC-EVD compared to T-EVD reduces incidence and risk of complications and should be the first choice in EVD placement. That said, T-EVD has a role in paediatric patients and for intraoperatively and occipitally placed EVDs.