Search

Purpose: Virtual reality (VR) allows for an immersive and interactive analysis of imaging data such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study is to assess the comprehensibility of VR anatomy and its value in assessing resectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: This study assesses exposure to VR anatomy and evaluates the potential role of VR in assessing resectability of PDAC. Firstly, volumetric abdominal CT and MRI data were displayed in an immersive VR environment. Volunteering physicians were asked to identify anatomical landmarks in VR. In the second stage, experienced clinicians were asked to identify vascular involvement in a total of 12 CT and MRI scans displaying PDAC (2 resectable, 2 borderline resectable, and 2 locally advanced tumours per modality). Results were compared to 2D standard PACS viewing. Results: In VR visualisation of CT and MRI, the abdominal anatomical landmarks were recognised by all participants except the pancreas (30/34) in VR CT and the splenic (31/34) and common hepatic artery (18/34) in VR MRI, respectively. In VR CT, resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced PDAC were correctly identified in 22/24, 20/24 and 19/24 scans, respectively. Whereas, in VR MRI, resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced PDAC were correctly identified in 19/24, 19/24 and 21/24 scans, respectively. Interobserver agreement as measured by Fleiss κ was 0.7 for CT and 0.4 for MRI, respectively (p < 0.001). Scans were significantly assessed more accurately in VR CT than standard 2D PACS CT, with a median of 5.5 (IQR 4.75–6) and a median of 3 (IQR 2–3) correctly assessed out of 6 scans (p < 0.001). Conclusion: VR enhanced visualisation of abdominal CT and MRI scan data provides intuitive handling and understanding of anatomy and might allow for more accurate staging of PDAC and could thus become a valuable adjunct in PDAC resectability assessment in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Due to improved survival of esophageal cancer patients, long-term quality of life (QoL) is increasingly gaining importance. The aim of this study is to compare QoL outcomes between open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E) and a hybrid approach including laparotomy and a robot-assisted thoracic phase (hRob-E). Additionally, a standard group of healthy individuals serves as reference. Methods: With a median follow-up of 36 months after hRob-E (n = 28) and 40 months after Open-E (n = 43), patients' QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Esophagus specific QoL questionnaire 18 (QLQ-OES18). Results: Patients showed similar clinical-pathological characteristics, but hRob-E patients had significantly higher ASA scores at surgery (p < 0.001). Patients and healthy controls reported similar global health status and emotional and cognitive functions. However, physical functioning of Open-E patients was significantly reduced compared to healthy controls (p = 0.019). Operated patients reported reduced role and social functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, and diarrhea. A trend towards a better pain score after hRob-E compared to Open-E emerged (p = 0.063). Regarding QLQ-OES18, hRob-E- and Open-E-treated patients similarly reported eating problems, reflux, and troubles swallowing saliva. Conclusions: The global health status is not impaired after esophagectomy. Despite higher ASA scores, QoL of hRob-E patients is similar to that of patients operated with Open-E. Moreover, patients after hRob-E appear to have a better score regarding physical functioning and a better pain profile than patients after Open-E, indicating a benefit of minimally invasive surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) shows excellent results with low complication rates and is therefore considered a gold standard. However, in case of stones non-removable by ERCP, surgical extraction is needed. The surgical approach is still controversial and clinical guidelines are missing. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones. Methods: All patients who underwent choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones at a tertiary referral hospital over 11 years were included. The analyzed data contains basic demographics, diagnostics, surgical parameters, length of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality. Results: Over the study period, 4375 patients underwent cholecystectomy, and 655 received an ERCP with stone extraction, with 48 of these patients receiving subsequent surgical treatment. ERCP was attempted in 23/30 (77%) of the choledochotomy patients pre/intraoperatively and 11/18 (56%) in hepaticojejunostomy patients. The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo > II) was 1/30 (3%) in the choledochotomy group and 2/18 (11%) in the hepaticojejunostomy group. Complications after 30 days occurred in 3/30 (10%) patients and 2/18 (11%), respectively, and no mortality occurred. Conclusion: ERCP should still be considered the gold standard, although due to low short- and long-term morbidity rates, choledochotomy and hepaticojejunostomy represent effective surgical solutions for common bile duct stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Centralisation of highly specialised medicine (HSM) has changed practice and outcome in pancreatic surgery (PS) also in Switzerland. Fewer hospitals are allowed to perform pancreatic surgery according to nationally defined cut-offs. Objective: We aimed to examine trends in PS in Switzerland. First, to assess opinions and expected trends among Swiss pancreatic surgeons in regard of PS practice and second, to assess the evolution of PS performance in Switzerland by a nationwide retrospective analysis. Methods: First, a 26-item survey among all surgeons who performed PS in 2016 in Switzerland was performed. Then, nationwide data from 1998 to 2018 from all hospitals performing PS was analysed including centre volume, perioperative morbidity and mortality, surgical indications and utilisation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). The national cut-off for regulatory accredited volume centres (AVC) was ≥ 12. Additionally, an international benchmark definition for high volume (≥ 20 surgeries/year) was used. Results: Among 25 surgeons from 15 centres (response rate 51%), the survey revealed agreement that centralisation is important to improve perioperative outcomes. Respondents agreed on a minimum case load per surgeon or centre. Within the nationwide database, 8534 pancreatic resections were identified. Most resections were performed for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (58.9%). There was a significant trend towards centralisation of PS with fewer non-accredited volume centres (nAVC) (36 in 1998 and 17 in 2018, p < 0.001) and more AVC (2 in 1998 and 18 in 2018, p < 0.001). A significantly higher adjusted mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was observed in low-volume compared to high-volume hospitals (OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.15–1.84], p = 0.002) and a similar trend compared among AVC and nAVC (OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.98–1.60], p = 0.072), while mortality after distal pancreatectomy (DP) was not influenced by centre volume. Conclusions: Over the last two decades, centralisation of PS towards higher-volume centres was observed in Switzerland with a decrease of mortality after PD and low mortality after DP. Further centralisation is supported by most pancreatic surgeons. However, the ideal metric and outcome measures for the allocation of highly specialised medicine need further discussion to allow a fair and outcome-focused allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esophageal cancer surgery is technically highly demanding. During the past decade robot-assisted surgery has successfully been introduced in esophageal cancer treatment. Various techniques are being evaluated in different centers. In particular, advantages and disadvantages of continuously sutured (COSU) or linear-stapled (LIST) gastroesophageal anastomoses are debated. Here, we comparatively analyzed perioperative morbidities and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing hybrid robot-assisted esophageal surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), with COSU or LIST anastomoses in a single center. Methods: Following standardized, effective, nCRT, 53 patients underwent a hybrid Ivor Lewis robot-assisted esophagectomy with COSU (n = 32) or LIST (n = 21) gastroesophageal anastomoses. Study endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Duration of operation, intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital stay were also evaluated. Furthermore, rates of rehospitalization, endoscopies, anastomotic stenosis and recurrence were assessed in a 90-day follow-up. Results: Demographics, ASA scores and tumor characteristics were comparable in the two groups. Median duration of operation was similar in patients with COSU and LIST anastomosis (467 vs. 453 min, IQR 420–521 vs. 416–469, p = 0.0611). Major complications were observed in 4/32 (12.5%) and 4/21 (19%) patients with COSU or LIST anastomosis, respectively (p = 0.697). Anastomotic leakage was observed in 3/32 (9.3%) and 2/21 (9.5%) (p = 1.0) patients with COSU or LIST anastomosis, respectively. Pleural empyema occurred in 1/32 (3.1%) and 2/21 (9.5%) (p = 0.555) patients, respectively. Mortality was similar in the two groups (1/32, 3.1% and 1/21, 4.7%, p = 1.0). Median ICU stay did not differ in patients with COSU or LIST anastomosis (p = 0.255), whereas a slightly, but significantly (p = 0.0393) shorter overall hospital stay was observed for COSU, as compared to LIST cohort (median: 20 vs. 21 days, IQR 17–22 vs. 18–28). Conclusions: COSU is not inferior to LIST in the performance of gastroesophageal anastomosis in hybrid Ivor Lewis operations following nCRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Perioperative processes have a great impact on the quality of surgery. In a high-risk surrounding, proper planning and communication is of upmost importance. We have identified other professions next to surgery with comparable circumstances and conducted a survey to elaborate on the impact of perioperative processes. Objective: To identify standards in preoperative planning in high-risk professions and determine possible shortcomings in surgical practice. Methods: Two surveys were constructed and distributed to surgeons, mountain guides, and soldiers. Questions were designed to investigate preoperative planning behavior and compare the different professions. Results: Nearly every participant (97%) agreed to the fact that preoperative planning helps to avoid complications. Most surgeons agreed that the preoperative and postoperative phase of care had the greatest ability to improve overall quality of care. The opinions about planning were divided. The minority of surgeons agreed to the importance of sharing a plan preoperatively. Soldiers were the profession with the highest rate of plan sharing. Conclusion: The readiness to communicate varies between professions and is lowest for surgeons. Missing standardization of procedures and the surgeon's ego might be explanations for this behavior. Interventions to overcome this shortcoming, like the preoperative team timeout, have already been implemented but further improvements are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) of locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with challenging surgical treatment and increased postoperative morbidity. Robotic technology overcomes laparoscopy limitations by enlarged 3D view, improved anatomical transection accuracy, and physiologic tremor reduction. Patients with UICC stage II–III rectal cancer, consecutively referred to our institution between March 2015 and June 2020 (n = 102) were treated with robotic (Rob-G, n = 38) or laparoscopic (Lap-G, n = 64) low anterior resection (LAR) for total meso-rectal excision (TME) following highly standardized and successful nCRT treatment. Feasibility, conversion rates, stoma creation, morbidity and clinical/pathological outcome were comparatively analysed. Sex, age, BMI, ASA scores, cTN stages and tumour distance from dentate line were comparable in the two groups. Robotic resection was always feasible without conversion to open surgery, which was necessary in 11/64 (17%) Lap-G operations (p = 0.006). Primary or secondary stomata were created in 17/38 (45%) Rob-G and 52/64 (81%) Lap-G patients (p < 0.001). Major morbidity occurred in 7/38 (18.4%) Rob-G and 6/64 (9.3%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.225). Although median operation time was longer in Rob-G compared with Lap-G (376; IQR: 330–417 min vs. 300; IQR: 270–358 min; p < 0.001), the difference was not significant in patients (Rob-G, n = 6; Lap-G, n = 10) with ≥30 BMI (p = 0.106). Number of resected lymph nodes, ypTN staging and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were comparable. Resection was complete in 87% of Rob-G and 89% of Lap-G patients (p = 0.750). Robotic LAR is not inferior to laparoscopic LAR following nCRT. Larger, randomized studies are needed to confirm lower conversion in robotic, compared to laparoscopic resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more and more popularity over the last years. It seems to be advantageous to laparoscopic surgery in selected situations, especially in confined regions like a narrow male pelvis in rectal surgery. Whether robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies can serve as safe training operations for less frequent, low anterior resections for rectal cancer is still under debate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) compared to laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in left-sided colectomies. Methods: Between June 2015 and December 2019, 683 patients undergoing minimally invasive left-sided colectomies in two Swiss, high-volume colorectal centers were included. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 179 patients undergoing RAL and 504 patients undergoing LSC were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed similar results. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.6% of RAL and 2.0% of LSC patients (p = 0.193). Differences in postoperative complications graded Dindo ≥ 3 were not statistically significant (RAL 3.9% vs. LSC 6.3%, p = 0.227). Occurrence of anastomotic leakages showed no statistically significant difference [RAL n = 2 (1.1%), LSC n = 8 (1.6%), p = 0.653]. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conversions to open surgery were significantly higher in the LSC group (6.2% vs.1.7%, p = 0.018), while stoma formation was similar in both groups [RAL n = 1 (0.6%), LSC n = 5 (1.0%), p = 0.594]. Operative time was longer in the RAL group (300 vs. 210.0 min, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies are safe and feasible compared to laparoscopic resections. Intra- and postoperative complications are similar in both groups. Most notably, the rate of anastomotic leakages is similar. Compared to laparoscopic resections, the analyzed robotic-assisted resections have longer operative times but less conversion rates. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies as training procedures for low anterior resections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Robotic-assisted procedures are increasingly used in esophageal cancer surgery. We compared postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes following hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (Rob-E) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E), performed in a single mid-volume center, in the context of evolving preoperative patient and tumor characteristics over two decades. Methods: We evaluated prospectively collected data from a single center from 1999 to 2020 including 321 patients that underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 76 underwent Rob-E, and 245 Open-E. To compare perioperative outcomes, a 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed. Endpoints included postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality. Results: Preoperative characteristics revealed increased rates of adenocarcinomas and wider use of neoadjuvant treatment over time. A larger number of patients with higher ASA grades were operated with Rob-E. In case-matched cohorts, there were no differences in the overall morbidity (69.7% in Rob-E, 60.5% in Open-E, p value 0.307), highest Clavien-Dindo grade per patient (43.4% vs. 38.2% grade I or II, p value 0.321), comprehensive complication index (median 20.9 in both groups, p value 0.401), and 30-day mortality (2.6% in Rob-E, 3.9% in Open-E, p value 1.000). Similar median numbers of lymph nodes were harvested (24.5 in Rob-E, 23 in Open-E, p value 0.204), and comparable rates of R0-status (96.1% vs. 93.4%, p value 0.463) and distribution of postoperative UICC stages (overall p value 0.616) were observed. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates similar postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes after Rob-E and Open-E. However, the selection criteria for Rob-E appeared to be less restrictive than those of Open-E surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete upside-down stomach (cUDS) hernias are a subgroup of large hiatal hernias characterized by high risk of life-threatening complications and technically challenging surgical repair including complex mediastinal dissection. In a prospective, comparative clinical study, we evaluated intra- and postoperative outcomes, quality of life and symptomatic recurrence rates in patients with cUDS undergoing robot-assisted, as compared to standard laparoscopic repair (the RATHER-study). Methods: All patients with cUDS herniation requiring elective surgery in our institution between July 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Patients undergoing primary open surgery or additional associated procedures were not considered. Primary endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. During the 8–53 months follow-up period, patients were contacted by telephone to assess symptoms associated to recurrence, whereas quality of life was evaluated utilizing the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease–Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire. Results: A total of 55 patients were included. 36 operations were performed with robot-assisted (Rob-G), and 19 with standard laparoscopic (Lap-G) technique. Patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Median operation time was 232 min. (IQR: 145-420) in robot-assisted vs. 163 min. (IQR:112-280) in laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 5/36 (12.5%) cases in the Rob-G group and in 5/19 (26%) cases in the Lap-G group (p = 0.28). No conversion was necessary in either group. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 13/36 (36%) Rob-G patients and 4/19 (21%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.36). Mortality or major complications did not occur in either group. Two asymptomatic recurrences were observed in the Rob-G group only. No patient required revision surgery. Finally, all patients expressed satisfaction for treatment outcome, as indicated by similar GERD-HRQL scores. Conclusion: While robot-assisted surgery provides additional precision, enhanced visualization, and greater feasibility in cUDS hiatal hernia repair, its clinical outcome is at least equal to that obtained by standard laparoscopic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the most devastating malignant diseases, predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. Despite advances in surgical techniques and in systemic therapy, the 5-year relative survival remains a grim 9% for all stages combined. The extent of lymphadenectomy has been discussed intensively for decades, given that even in early stages of PC, lymph node (LN) metastasis can be detected in approximately 80%. Purpose: The primary objective of this review was to provide an overview of the current literature evaluating the role of lymphadenectomy in resected PC. For this, we evaluated randomized controlled studies (RCTs) assessing the impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on OS and studies evaluating the prognostic impact of anatomical site of LN metastasis and the impact of the number of resected LNs on OS. Conclusions: Lymphadenectomy plays an essential part in the multimodal treatment algorithm of PC and is an additional therapeutic tool to increase the chance for surgical radicality and to ensure correct staging for optimal oncological therapy. Based on the literature from the last decades, standard lymphadenectomy with resection of at least ≥ 15 LNs is associated with an acceptable postoperative complication risk and should be recommended to obtain local radicality and accurate staging of the disease. Although radical surgery including appropriate lymphadenectomy of regional LNs remains the only chance for long-term tumor control, future studies specifically assessing the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on extraregional LNs are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents case studies of two patients with Crohn's disease associated with large and small bowel perforation or adenocarcinoma with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Topics discussed include requirement of emergency explorative laparotomy due to bowel obstruction, presence of tumorous perforation in distal ileum with peritoneal carcinomatosis; need of emergency surgery for peritonitis, long history of Crohn's disease, and presence of perforation in distal ileum.