RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The optimal extent of lymph node dissection (LND) and the anatomic boundaries per lymph node station (LNS) during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer remain a topic of debate. This study investigated the opinion of Dutch esophageal cancer surgeons on their routine LND extent and anatomic boundaries per LNS during MIE. METHODS: In April 2023, an English web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted. In each of the 15 Dutch hospitals performing MIE, two MIE surgeons were asked to participate. The routine LND extent (quantity, specific LNS) for distal esophageal adenocarcinoma, (dis)agreement with the TIGER definition, and anatomic boundaries for each LNS in six directions were queried. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 24 Dutch MIE surgeons (80% response rate). Consensus on the routine LND extent ( ≥ 85% of the participating surgeons) included the left and right paracardial, left gastric artery, celiac trunk, proximal splenic artery, common hepatic artery, subcarinal middle mediastinal paraoesophageal, lower mediastinal paraoesophageal, pulmonary ligament, and upper mediastinal paraoesophageal LNSs. Other LNSs were not widely considered routine. Although, certain anatomic boundaries were consistent among the surgeons, the majority varied, even when they agreed on the TIGER definition. CONCLUSION: Significant variations in surgical practice among Dutch esophageal surgeons regarding their routine extent of LND and anatomic boundaries of LNSs during MIE were demonstrated. Variation may have an impact on clinical outcomes, hampering uniform treatment strategies and hindering comparison of performance assessments. This study highlighted the need for an international follow-up study toward one uniform defined LND during MIE for esophageal cancer.
RESUMO
Although the prevalence of canine hip dysplasia (HD) has been the subject of a number of published studies, estimates vary widely. This study evaluated several possible causes for these differences. Sixty Belgian, Dutch and German veterinarians were asked to submit all hip radiographs obtained for screening purposes (irrespective of HD status) over a 2-year period, resulting in a database of 583 dogs. Each set of radiographs was accompanied by information on the reason for screening (breeding soundness examination, clinical complaint, assistance dogs, or other reasons), and dog breed, date of birth and age. Dog positioning exerted an effect at multiple levels. The agreement among different observers regarding correct or incorrect positioning was limited and incorrect positioning itself reduced the inter-observer agreement for radiographic hip conformation. Dysplastic dogs were more commonly positioned incorrectly than non-dysplastic dogs. The clinical complaint population had a high prevalence of dysplastic dogs (>70%) compared with the breeding population (11%) and the assistance dogs (6%). There was a significantly lower prevalence of HD among cases referred by veterinarians who frequently submitted hip-extended radiographs for evaluation (P = 0.002) compared to those who refer less frequently. However, this was likely to be selection bias, as radiographs that were from dogs suspected to be dysplastic were not submitted by frequent senders. The prevalence of dysplastic dogs varied widely between breeds (16.7-71.4%). Dogs diagnosed with dysplasia were significantly older than dogs considered healthy (P = 0.001) and dogs classified as borderline dysplastic (P = 0.035). Inter-observer agreement for hip conformation was moderately low, resulting in >7% variation in prevalence estimates for dysplasia.
