This study was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a combined physical exercise and psychosocial intervention for children with cancer compared with usual care. Sixty-eight children, aged 8-18 years old, during or within the first year post-cancer treatment were randomised to the intervention (n = 30) and control group (n = 38). Health outcomes included fitness, muscle strength and quality adjusted life years; all administered at baseline, 4- and 12-month follow-up. Costs were gathered by 1 monthly cost questionnaires over 12 months, supplemented by medication data obtained from pharmacies. Results showed no significant differences in costs and effects between the intervention and control group at 12-month follow-up. On average, societal costs were €299 higher in the intervention group than in the control group, but this difference was not significant. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the intervention needs large societal investments to reach reasonable probabilities of cost-effectiveness for quality of life and lower body muscle strength. Based on the results of this study, the intervention is not cost-effective in comparison with usual care.

Purpose The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major healthcare challenges worldwide resulting in an exponential increase in the need for hospital- and intensive care support for COVID-19 patients. As a result, surgical care was restricted to urgent cases of surgery. However, the care for trauma patients is not suitable for reduction or delayed treatment. The influence of the pandemic on the burden of disease of trauma care remains to be elucidated. Methods All patients with traumatic injuries that were presented to the emergency departments (ED) of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location Academic Medical Center (AMC) and VU medical center (VUMC) and the Northwest Clinics (NWC) between March 10, 2019 and May 10, 2019 (non-COVID) and March 10, 2020 and May 10, 2020 (COVID-19 period) were included. The primary outcome was the difference in ED admissions for trauma patients between the non-COVID and COVID-19 study period. Additionally, patient- and injury characteristics, health care consumption, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results A 37% reduction of ED admissions for trauma patients was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic (non-COVID n = 2423 and COVID cohort n = 1531). Hospital admission was reduced by 1.6 trauma patients per day. Fewer patients sustained car- and sports-related injuries. Injuries after high energetic trauma were more severe in the COVID-19 period (Injury Severity Score 17.3 vs. 12.0, p = 0.006). Relatively more patients were treated operatively (21.4% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.001) during the COVID-19 period. Upper-(17.6 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.002) and lower extremity injuries (30.7 vs. 23.0%, p = 0.002) mainly accounted for this difference. The 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (1.0 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.001). Conclusion The burden of disease and healthcare consumption of trauma patients remained high during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of this study can be used to optimize the use of hospital capacity and anticipate health care planning in future outbreaks.

Objective: Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with adequate lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is increasingly being applied worldwide. Several randomized trials have been conducted regarding this surgical approach. The aim of this meta-analysis is to present an updated overview comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) with regard to short-term results, longterm follow-up, and oncological outcomes. Methods: An extensive search was conducted using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases, including randomized clinical trials comparing LDG and open distal gastrectomy. Studies were assessed regarding outcomes for operative results, postoperative recovery, complications, mortality, adequacy of resection, and long-term survival. Results: In total, 2,347 articles were identified, and 22 randomized clinical trials were selected for analysis. Operative results showed significantly less blood loss and a longer operative time for LDG. Patients after LDG showed a faster recovery of bowel function, shorter hospitalization, and fewer complications, while mortality rates did not differ. Lymph node yield and resection margins were similar in both groups. Results regarding survival could not be analyzed due to a great diversity in follow-up duration. Conclusion: Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy shows favorable outcomes, such as less perioperative blood loss, faster patient recovery, and fewer complications. Moreover, LDG is oncologically adequate regarding lymph node yield, adequacy of resection, and survival.

Trauma-related preventable death (TRPD) has been used to assess the management and quality of trauma care worldwide. However, due to differences in terminology and application, the definition of TRPD lacks validity. The aim of this systematic review is to present an overview of current literature and establish a designated definition of TRPD to improve the assessment of quality of trauma care. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Web of Science Core Collection. Including studies regarding TRPD, published between January 1, 1990, and April 6, 2021. Studies were assessed on the use of a definition of TRPD, injury severity scoring tool and panel review. Results: In total, 3,614 articles were identified, 68 were selected for analysis. The definition of TRPD was divided in four categories: I. Clinical definition based on panel review or expert opinion (TRPD, trauma-related potentially preventable death, trauma-related non-preventable death), II. An algorithm (injury severity score (ISS), trauma and injury severity score (TRISS), probability of survival (Ps)), III. Clinical definition completed with an algorithm, IV. Other. Almost 85% of the articles used a clinical definition in some extend; solely clinical up to an additional algorithm. A total of 27 studies used injury severity scoring tools of which the ISS and TRISS were the most frequently reported algorithms. Over 77% of the panels included trauma surgeons, 90% included other specialist; 61% emergency medicine physicians, 46% forensic pathologists and 43% nurses. Conclusion:The definition of TRPD is not unambiguous in literature and should be based on a clinical definition completed with a trauma prediction algorithm such as the TRISS. TRPD panels should include a trauma surgeon, anesthesiologist, emergency physician, neurologist, and forensic pathologist.