Search

As multiple crises deepen existing inequalities in urban societies within and between neighborhoods, strategically integrating nature-based solutions into the living environment can help reduce negative impacts and improve public health, social cohesion, and well-being. Compared to public green such as parks, semi-public residential greenery is rarely studied, is regularly overlooked by planners, and often receives step-motherly treatment from architects and housing companies. We approximated the area of residential greenery of modernist multi-story apartment complexes in Berlin, Germany. We surveyed residents' suggestions for improving their living environments in vulnerable neighborhoods, report on co-creation experiences, and provide a practical guideline for optimizing health-promoting residential green spaces. The semi-public open space on the doorstep of two-thirds of Berlin's population is highly fragmented and, in total, has a similar area as the public green spaces and a great potential for qualitative development. Just as the suitability of different nature-based solutions to be integrated into the residential greenery depends on building types, resident demands differ between neighborhoods. Residents called for more involvement in design, implementation, and maintenance, frequently proposing that biodiversity-friendly measures be included. As there is no universal solution even for neighborhoods sharing similar structural and socioeconomic parameters, we propose, and have tested, an optimization loop for health-promoting residential greening that involves exploring residents' needs and co-creating local solutions for urban regeneration processes that can be initiated by different actors using bottom-up and/or top-down approaches in order to unlock this potential for healthy, livable and biodiversity friendly cities., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Mohr-Stockinger, Sanft, Büttner, Butenschön, Rennert and Säumel.)

Background: Transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC) is regarded as a model operation in the newly developed field of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Randomized, controlled trials to assess TVC as a surgical strategy are largely missing., Materials and Methods: The study was a double blind, randomized, controlled, single center trial in female patients > 18 years with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) and TVC. The study investigated pain reduction of ≥ 1 point on a visual-numeric rating scale with a follow-up after 7 days. Secondary endpoints were complications and patient reported outcome. Groups were established using computer-generated randomization and sealed envelopes in the operating theatre. At the end of the surgical procedure all patients received a standard 4-trocar dressing as for CLC and a vaginal tamponade., Results: A total of 426 patients were asked to participate, of which 97 were randomized, 51 in the CLC, 41 in the TVC groups and 5 were excluded from the study. Patients were comparable regarding age, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Surgical and anesthesia times were significantly different. There was no difference in postoperative pain. The majority of patients were satisfied with both procedures and TVC was recommended to other patients by 93 % of patients in the TVC group., Conclusion: The results did not show superiority of TVC over CLC with regards to postoperative pain. With no differences in postoperative pain and high patient satisfaction, TVC can be recommended to future patients as an alternative method. For confirmation of this evaluation of TVC further randomized trials are needed.