A European snapshot of psychosocial characteristics and patients' perspectives of faecal incontinence-do they correlate with current scoring systems?

PURPOSE: To compare the current clinical scoring systems used to quantify the severity of symptoms of faecal incontinence (FI) to patients' subjective scoring of parameters of psychosocial well-being. METHODS: Patients referred to six European centres for investigation or treatment of symptoms of FI between June 2017 and September 2019 completed a questionnaire that captured patient demographics, incontinence symptoms using St. Mark's Incontinence score (SMIS) and ICIQ-B, psychological well-being (HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and social interaction (a three-item loneliness scale). RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen patients completed questionnaires (62 men, mean age 58.7). Sixty percent of the respondents were aged under 65. Median SMIS was 15 (11-18), ICIQ-B bowel pattern was 8 (6-11) and bowel control was 17 (13-22), similar across all demographic groups; however, younger patients were more likely to experience symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS score > 10, 65.2% of patients age < 65 vs 54.9% of those ages > = 65, p = 0.03) with lower quality of life (ICIQ-B QoL, median score 19 (14-23)) vs age > = 65 (16 (11-21) (p < 0.005)). On loneliness score 25.5% reported often feeling isolated from others. One of the most significant concerns by patients was the fear and embarrassment related to unpredictable episodes of incontinence. CONCLUSION: The SMIS remains a useful tool for quantifying incontinence symptoms but may underestimate the psychosocial morbidity associated with unpredictable episodes of incontinence. Interventions aimed at decreasing anxiety and to address feelings of disgust may be helpful for a significant number of patients requiring treatment for FI.

Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing worldwide. The benefit of the robot in this scenario is currently controversially discussed. We compared our robotic cases vs. laparoscopic and open minor hepatic resections and share the experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, ten patients underwent robotic and 19 patients underwent laparoscopic minor liver resections in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen. These patients were compared to a case-matched control group of 53 patients. The perioperative prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Blood loss was significantly decreased in the robotic (306 ml) and laparoscopic (356 ml) vs. the open (903 ml) surgery group (p = 0.001). Mean tumor size was 4.1-4.8 cm in all groups (p = 0.571). Negative surgical margins were present in 94 % of the open and 100 % of the laparoscopic and robotic group (p = 0.882). Time for surgery was enlarged for robotic (321 min) vs. laparoscopic (242 min) and open (186 min) surgery (p = 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization was decreased after robotic (7 days) and laparoscopic (8 days) vs. open (10 days) surgery (p = 0.004). Total morbidity was 17 % for open, 16 % for laparoscopic, and 1 % for robotic cases (p = 0.345). Postoperative pain medication and elevation of liver enzymes were remarkably lower after minimally invasive vs. open procedures. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery can be performed safely for minor hepatic resections and should be considered whenever possible. Minor liver resections can be performed by standard laparoscopy equivalent to robotic procedures. Nevertheless, the robot adds a technical upgrade which may have benefits for challenging cases and major liver surgery.

Identification of Predictive Markers for Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Rectal Carcinomas by Proteomic Isotope Coded Protein Label (ICPL) Analysis.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is an established procedure in stage union internationale contre le cancer (UICC) II/III rectal carcinomas. Around 53% of the tumours present with good tumor regression after nCRT, and 8%-15% are complete responders. Reliable selection markers would allow the identification of poor or non-responders prior to therapy. Tumor biopsies were harvested from 20 patients with rectal carcinomas, and stored in liquid nitrogen prior to therapy after obtaining patients' informed consent (Erlangen-No.3784). Patients received standardized nCRT with 5-Fluoruracil (nCRT I) or 5-Fluoruracil ± Oxaliplatin (nCRT II) according to the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 protocol. After surgery, regression grading (Dworak) of the tumors was performed during histopathological examination of the specimens. Tumors were classified as poor (Dworak 1 + 2) or good (Dworak 3 + 4) responders. Laser capture microdissection (LCM) for tumor enrichment was performed on preoperative biopsies. Differences in expressed proteins between poor and good responders to nCRT I and II were identified by proteomic analysis (Isotope Coded Protein Label, ICPL™) and selected markers were validated by immunohistochemistry. Tumors of 10 patients were classified as histopathologically poor (Dworak 1 or 2) and the other 10 tumor samples as histopathologically good (Dworak 3 or 4) responders to nCRT after surgery. Sufficient material in good quality was harvested for ICPL analysis by LCM from all biopsies. We identified 140 differentially regulated proteins regarding the selection criteria and the response to nCRT. Fourteen of these proteins were synchronously up-regulated at least 1.5-fold after nCRT I or nCRT II (e.g., FLNB, TKT, PKM2, SERINB1, IGHG2). Thirty-five proteins showed a complete reciprocal regulation (up or down) after nCRT I or nCRT II and the rest was regulated either according to nCRT I or II. The protein expression of regulated proteins such as PLEC1, TKT, HADHA and TAGLN was validated successfully by immunohistochemistry. ICPL is a valid method to identify differentially expressed proteins in rectal carcinoma tissue between poor vs. good responders to nCRT. The identified protein markers may act as selection criteria for nCRT in the future, but our preliminary findings must be reproduced and validated in a prospective cohort.

Pioneering Robotic Liver Surgery in Germany: First Experiences with Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery is growing worldwide with obvious benefits for the treated patients. These procedures maybe improved by robotic techniques, which add several innovative features. In Germany, we were the first surgical department implementing robotic assisted minimally invasive liver resections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between June 2013 and March 2015, we performed robotic based minimally invasive liver resections in nine patients with malignant liver disease. Five off these patients suffered from primary and four from secondary liver malignancies. We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative variables of these patients and the oncological follow up. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 63 years (range 45-71). One patient suffered from intrahepatic cholangiocellular, four from hepatocellular carcinoma, and four patients from colorectal liver metastases. In six patients, left lateral liver resection, in two cases single segment resection, and in one case minimally invasive guided liver ablation were performed. Five patients underwent previous abdominal surgery. Mean operation time was 312 min (range 115-458 min). Mean weight of the liver specimens was 182 g (range 62-260 g) and mean estimated blood loss was 251 ml (range 10-650 ml). The mean tumor size was 4.4 cm (range 3.5-5.5 cm). In all cases, R0 status was confirmed with a mean margin of 0.6 cm (range 0.1-1.5 cm). One patient developed small bowel fistula on postoperative day 5, which could be treated conservatively. No patient died. Mean hospital stay of the patients was 6 days (range 3-10 days). During a mean follow up of 12 months (range 1-21 months), two patients developed tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: Robotic-based liver surgery is feasible in patients with primary and secondary liver malignancies. To achieve perioperative parameters comparable to open settings, the learning curve must be passed. Minor liver resections are good candidates to start this technique. But the huge benefits of robotic-based liver resections should be expected in extended procedures beyond minor liver resections with the currently available technology.