{"title":"Correction to: Endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease: Endo-STAR framework for the design, conduct, and reporting of trials.","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf105","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143915184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Russell S Martins,Warda Ahmed,M Umar Mahar,Ayilkin Çelik,Jeffrey Luo,Syed S Razi,Kostantinos Poulikidis,M Jawad Latif,Kyle Tafuri,Mahim A Malik,Faiz Y Bhora,
{"title":"Beyond the operating room: surgeons' perceptions of the environmental footprint of the healthcare sector.","authors":"Russell S Martins,Warda Ahmed,M Umar Mahar,Ayilkin Çelik,Jeffrey Luo,Syed S Razi,Kostantinos Poulikidis,M Jawad Latif,Kyle Tafuri,Mahim A Malik,Faiz Y Bhora,","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf088","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143915185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sigmoid volvulus: outcomes of surgery and conservative management after initial colonoscopic decompression (the VOLVUCOL study).","authors":"Lucie Audeguy,Mattia Stella,Damien Duprez,Astrid Laurent,Fatah Tidadini,Alison Foote,Joey Fournier,Bertrand Trilling,Jean-Luc Faucheron","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf085","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143903046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J Xavier Harmeling,J Juliët Vrolijk,Erik Heeg,Babette E Becherer,Hinne A Rakhorst,Eveline M L Corten,Marta Fiocco,Marc A M Mureau
BACKGROUNDImplant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after mastectomy. Breast implants are categorized by surface type as smooth, textured, or polyurethane-covered, each with specific attributed advantages and complication profiles. High-quality comparative studies are, however, limited. This study compared revision incidence and indications for revision among these implant types.METHODSA prospective, nationwide cohort from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry was analysed. Permanent implants used between 2017 and 2022 for direct-to-implant or two-stage reconstruction were included. Surface-related revision was the primary outcome. Cumulative incidences were estimated using a competing risk model. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRcs) were calculated using univariable and multivariable models, accounting for implant clustering and confounders. Subgroup analyses examined revisions for specific complications.RESULTSOf 3996 implants, 76.9% were textured, 12.4% smooth, and 10.8% polyurethane-covered. At 4 years, the cumulative incidence of revision surgeries did not differ between textured (11.1%; 95% c.i. = 9.9 to 12.5), smooth (13.0%; 95% c.i. = 8.5 to 18.4), and polyurethane-covered (16.1%; 95% c.i. = 12.4 to 20.2) implants. Multivariable analysis found no association between surface type and surface-related revision. Subgroup analysis however revealed that polyurethane-covered implants had increased hazards of revision for capsular contracture (HRcs = 2.49; 95% c.i. = 1.24 to 5.01) and asymmetry (HRcs = 2.31; 95% c.i. = 1.33 to 4.02).CONCLUSIONAfter adjusting for confounders and clustering, surface-related revision in a reconstructive setting did not significantly different among breast implant surface types overall. Polyurethane-covered implants may, however, require more revisions due to capsular contracture and asymmetry.
背景：植体乳房重建是乳房切除术后最常见的技术。乳房植入物按表面类型分为光滑，有纹理或聚氨酯覆盖，每种都具有特定的优点和并发症概况。然而，高质量的比较研究是有限的。本研究比较了这些种植体类型的翻修发生率和翻修适应症。方法对来自荷兰乳房植入物注册中心的前瞻性全国队列进行分析。包括2017年至2022年间用于直接种植体或两阶段重建的永久种植体。表面相关修复是主要结果。使用竞争风险模型估计累积发生率。使用单变量和多变量模型计算原因特异性风险比（HRcs），考虑植入物聚类和混杂因素。亚组分析检查了针对特定并发症的修订。结果3996个种植体中，76.9%有纹理，12.4%光滑，10.8%聚氨酯覆盖。在4年的时间里，修复手术的累积发生率在纹理(11.1%；95% ci = 9.9 ~ 12.5)，平滑(13.0%；95% c.i. = 8.5至18.4)，聚氨酯覆盖(16.1%；95% c.i. = 12.4 ~ 20.2)种植体。多变量分析发现表面类型和表面相关修正之间没有关联。然而，亚组分析显示聚氨酯覆盖种植体增加了包膜挛缩翻修的危险(HRcs = 2.49；95% ci = 1.24 ~ 5.01)和不对称(HRcs = 2.31；95% ci = 1.33 ~ 4.02)。结论：在调整混杂因素和聚类因素后，乳房植入物表面类型在重建环境中的表面相关翻修总体上没有显著差异。然而，由于包膜挛缩和不对称，聚氨酯覆盖的植入物可能需要更多的修正。
{"title":"Comparison of revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction between smooth, textured, and polyurethane-covered implants: results from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.","authors":"J Xavier Harmeling,J Juliët Vrolijk,Erik Heeg,Babette E Becherer,Hinne A Rakhorst,Eveline M L Corten,Marta Fiocco,Marc A M Mureau","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf082","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDImplant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after mastectomy. Breast implants are categorized by surface type as smooth, textured, or polyurethane-covered, each with specific attributed advantages and complication profiles. High-quality comparative studies are, however, limited. This study compared revision incidence and indications for revision among these implant types.METHODSA prospective, nationwide cohort from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry was analysed. Permanent implants used between 2017 and 2022 for direct-to-implant or two-stage reconstruction were included. Surface-related revision was the primary outcome. Cumulative incidences were estimated using a competing risk model. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRcs) were calculated using univariable and multivariable models, accounting for implant clustering and confounders. Subgroup analyses examined revisions for specific complications.RESULTSOf 3996 implants, 76.9% were textured, 12.4% smooth, and 10.8% polyurethane-covered. At 4 years, the cumulative incidence of revision surgeries did not differ between textured (11.1%; 95% c.i. = 9.9 to 12.5), smooth (13.0%; 95% c.i. = 8.5 to 18.4), and polyurethane-covered (16.1%; 95% c.i. = 12.4 to 20.2) implants. Multivariable analysis found no association between surface type and surface-related revision. Subgroup analysis however revealed that polyurethane-covered implants had increased hazards of revision for capsular contracture (HRcs = 2.49; 95% c.i. = 1.24 to 5.01) and asymmetry (HRcs = 2.31; 95% c.i. = 1.33 to 4.02).CONCLUSIONAfter adjusting for confounders and clustering, surface-related revision in a reconstructive setting did not significantly different among breast implant surface types overall. Polyurethane-covered implants may, however, require more revisions due to capsular contracture and asymmetry.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144083164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Victor Lopez-Lopez, Abdi Hakin Mohamed, Asunción López-Conesa, David Fernández, Mercedes Benítez, Ricardo Robles-Campos, Ramadhani Omari Abdalla, Jose Manuel Rodriguez
{"title":"Implementing laparoscopic liver surgery in Sub-Saharan Africa: a capacity-building and hepatopancreatobiliary mentorship model.","authors":"Victor Lopez-Lopez, Abdi Hakin Mohamed, Asunción López-Conesa, David Fernández, Mercedes Benítez, Ricardo Robles-Campos, Ramadhani Omari Abdalla, Jose Manuel Rodriguez","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf107","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"112 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144126325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hannah Esser,Iris E M de Jong,Floris M Roos,Christina Bogensperger,Stefan M Brunner,Benno Cardini,Philipp Dutkowski,Hasan Eker,Sofia Ferreira-Gonzalez,Stuart J Forbes,Peter J Friend,Yiliam Fundora,Henrik Junger,Felix J Krendl,Paulo N Martins,Vincent E de Meijer,Rupert Oberhuber,Gabriel C Oniscu,Damiano Patrono,Robert J Porte,Thomas Resch,Hatem Sadik,Andrea Schlegel,Nicola De Stefano,Mathias Vidgren,Christopher J E Watson,Annemarie Weißenbacher,Stefan Schneeberger
{"title":"Consensus classification of biliary complications after liver transplantation: guidelines from the BileducTx meeting.","authors":"Hannah Esser,Iris E M de Jong,Floris M Roos,Christina Bogensperger,Stefan M Brunner,Benno Cardini,Philipp Dutkowski,Hasan Eker,Sofia Ferreira-Gonzalez,Stuart J Forbes,Peter J Friend,Yiliam Fundora,Henrik Junger,Felix J Krendl,Paulo N Martins,Vincent E de Meijer,Rupert Oberhuber,Gabriel C Oniscu,Damiano Patrono,Robert J Porte,Thomas Resch,Hatem Sadik,Andrea Schlegel,Nicola De Stefano,Mathias Vidgren,Christopher J E Watson,Annemarie Weißenbacher,Stefan Schneeberger","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znae321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae321","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143903045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Negative pressure wound therapy: does it suck?","authors":"Matthew J Lee,Thomas D Pinkney","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf093","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143914854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pedro Saramago,Athanasios Gkekas,Catherine E Arundel,Ian C Chetter,
BACKGROUNDNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in clinical practice for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI), despite limited evidence regarding its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NPWT for SWHSI, compared with standard dressings, from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.METHODSAn economic model was used to extrapolate the effectiveness results of a meta-analysis over a patient's lifetime and estimate the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) of NPWT and standard dressings. The probability of NPWT being cost-effective was estimated, with extensive scenario analyses conducted to evaluate the robustness of results and the degree of uncertainty.RESULTSOn average, NPWT was associated with higher costs and marginally higher QALYs than standard dressings. The cost difference was mainly driven by the additional intervention costs associated with NPWT. The estimated probability of NPWT being cost-effective was <30%. There was considerable uncertainty in the findings, driven largely by uncertainty in the estimated pooled relative effect from the meta-analysis. Results were robust to different scenario analyses.CONCLUSIONNo evidence was found demonstrating that NPWT was a cost-effective alternative to standard dressings for SWHSI.
{"title":"Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention is not cost-effective.","authors":"Pedro Saramago,Athanasios Gkekas,Catherine E Arundel,Ian C Chetter,","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf077","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in clinical practice for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI), despite limited evidence regarding its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NPWT for SWHSI, compared with standard dressings, from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.METHODSAn economic model was used to extrapolate the effectiveness results of a meta-analysis over a patient's lifetime and estimate the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) of NPWT and standard dressings. The probability of NPWT being cost-effective was estimated, with extensive scenario analyses conducted to evaluate the robustness of results and the degree of uncertainty.RESULTSOn average, NPWT was associated with higher costs and marginally higher QALYs than standard dressings. The cost difference was mainly driven by the additional intervention costs associated with NPWT. The estimated probability of NPWT being cost-effective was <30%. There was considerable uncertainty in the findings, driven largely by uncertainty in the estimated pooled relative effect from the meta-analysis. Results were robust to different scenario analyses.CONCLUSIONNo evidence was found demonstrating that NPWT was a cost-effective alternative to standard dressings for SWHSI.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143914869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：