Influence of Certification Program on Treatment Quality and Survival for Rectal Cancer Patients in Germany: Results of 13 Certified Centers in Collaboration with AN Institute.

INTRODUCTION: The certification of oncological units as colorectal cancer centers (CrCCs) has been proposed to standardize oncological treatment and improve the outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The proportion of patients with CRC in Germany that are treated by a certified center is around 53%. Lately, the effect of certification on the treatment outcomes has been critically discussed. AIM: Our aim was to investigate the treatment outcomes in patients with rectal carcinoma at certified CrCCs, in German hospitals of different medical care levels. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicentric database (AN Institute) of adult patients who underwent surgery for rectal carcinoma between 2002 and 2016. We included 563 patients from 13 hospitals of different medical care levels (basic, priority, and maximal care) over periods of 5 years before and after certification. RESULTS: The certified CrCCs showed a significant increase in the use of laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery (5% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). However, we observed a significantly prolonged mean duration of surgery in certified CrCCs (161 Min. vs. 192 Min., p < 0.001). The overall morbidity did not improve (32% vs. 38%, p = 0.174), but the appearance of postoperative stool fistulas decreased significantly in certified CrCCs (2% vs. 0%, p = 0.036). Concerning the overall in-hospital mortality, we registered a positive trend in certified centers during the five-year period after the certification (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.190). The length of preoperative hospitalization (preop. LOS) was shortened significantly (4.71 vs. 4.13 days, p < 0.001), while the overall length of in-hospital stays was also shorter in certified CrCCs (20.32 vs. 19.54 days, p = 0.065). We registered a clear advantage in detailed, high-quality histopathological examinations regarding the N, L, V, and M.E.R.C.U.R.Y. statuses. In the performed subgroup analysis, a significantly longer overall survival after certification was registered for maximal medical care units (p = 0.029) and in patients with UICC stage IV disease (p = 0.041). In patients with UICC stage III disease, we registered a slightly non-significant improvement in the disease-free survival (UICC III: p = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicate an improvement in terms of the treatment quality and outcomes in certified CrCCs, which is enforced by certification-specific aspects such as a more differentiated surgical approach, a lower rate of certain postoperative complications, and a multidisciplinary approach. Further prospective clinical trials are necessary to investigate the influence of certification in the treatment of CRC patients.

The Pancreas as a Target of Metastasis from Renal Cell Carcinoma: Is Surgery Feasible and Safe? A Single-Center Experience in a High-Volume and Certified Pancreatic Surgery Center in Germany.

Background: Secondary malignant tumors of the pancreas are rare, representing 2-5% of all pancreatic malignancies. Nevertheless, the pancreas is one of the target organs in cases of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). Additionally, recurrent metastasis may occur. Surgical resection remains the best and prognostically most favorable therapeutic option in cases of solitary pancreatic metastasis. Aim: To review retrospectively the clinical tumor registry of the University Hospital of Magdeburg, Germany, for this rare entity, performing a clinical systematic single-center observational study (design). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive patients who had undergone pancreatic resection for metastatic CCRC was performed in a single high-volume certified center for pancreatic surgery in Germany from 2010 to 2022. Results: All patients (n = 17) included in this study had a metachronous metastasis from a CCRCC. Surgery was performed at a median time interval of 12 (range, 9-16) years after primary resection for CCRCC. All 17 patients were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Three of those patients (17.6%) presented with recurrent metastasis in a different part of the pancreas during follow-up. In a total of 17 patients, including those with recurrent disease, a surgical resection was performed; Pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 6 patients (35%); left pancreatectomy with splenectomy was performed in 7 patients (41%). The rest of the patients underwent either a spleen-preserving pancreatic tail resection, local resection of the tumor lesion or a total pancreatectomy. The postoperative mortality rate was 6%. Concerning histopathological findings, seven patients (41%) had multifocal metastasis. An R0 resection could be achieved in all cases. The overall survival at one, three and five years was 85%, 85% and 72%, respectively, during a median follow-up of 43 months. Conclusions: CCRC pancreatic metastases can occur many years after the initial treatment of the primary tumor. Surgery for such a malignancy seems feasible and safe; it offers very good short- and long-term outcomes, as indicated. A repeated pancreatic resection can also be safely performed.

Robotic Complete ALPPS (rALPPS)-First German Experiences.

BACKGROUND: ALPPS leads to fast and effective liver hypertrophy. This enables the resection of extended tumors. Conventional ALPPS is associated with high morbidity and mortality. MILS reduces morbidity and the robot adds technical features that make complex procedures safe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The MD-MILS was screened for patients who underwent rALPPS. Demographic and perioperative data were evaluated retrospectively. Ninety days postoperative morbidity was scored according to the CD classification. The findings were compared with the literature. RESULTS: Since November 2021, five patients have been identified. The mean age and BMI of the patients were 50.0 years and 22.7 kg/m2. In four cases, patients suffered from colorectal liver metastases and, in one case, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Prior to the first operation, the mean liver volume of the residual left liver was 380.9 mL with a FLR-BWR of 0.677%. Prior to the second operation, the mean volume of the residual liver was 529.8 mL with a FLR-BWR of 0.947%. This was an increase of 41.9% of the residual liver volume. The first and second operations were carried out within 17.8 days. The mean time of the first and second operations was 341.2 min and 440.6 min. The mean hospital stay was 27.2 days. Histopathology showed the largest tumor size of 39 mm in diameter with a mean amount of 4.7 tumors. The mean tumor-free margin was 12.3 mm. One complication CD > 3a occurred. No patient died during the 90-day follow up. CONCLUSION: In the first German series, we demonstrated that rALPPS can be carried out safely with reduced morbidity and mortality in selected patients.

Management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic. Single center data from a tertiary care hospital in Germany.

Objectives: The unexpected global overload of the health system during COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes in management of acute appendicitis worldwide. Whereas conservative treatment was widely recommended, the appendicectomy remained standard therapy in Germany. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment routine for acute appendicitis at University Hospital of Magdeburg. Methods: Adult patients with clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis were included in the single center retrospective study. Data was collected to patient demographics, treatment modality and outcomes including morbidity and length of stay. The patient data related to COVID-19 period from March 22, 2020 to December 31, 2021 (649 days) were compared to the Non-COVID-19 period from June 12, 2018 to March 21, 2020 (649 days). Subgroup analysis related to conservative or surgical treatment has been performed. Results: A total of 385 patients was included in the study, 203 (52.73 %) during Non-COVID-19 period and 182 (47.27 %) during COVID-19 period. Mean age of entire collective was 43.28 years, containing 43.9 % female patients (p=0.095). Conservative treatment was accomplished in 49 patients (12.7 % of entire collective), increasing from 9.9 % to 15.9 % during COVID-19 period (p=0.074). Laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed in 99.3 % (n=152) of operated patients during COVID-19 period (p=0.013), followed by less postoperative complications compared to reference period (23.5 % vs. 13.1 %, p=0.015). The initiation of antibiotic therapy after the diagnosis increased from 37.9 % to 53.3 % (p=0.002) during COVID-19 period regardless the following treatment modality. Antibiotic treatment showed shorter duration during pandemic period (5.57 days vs. 3.16 days, p<0.001) and it was given longer in the conservative treatment group (5.63 days vs. 4.26 days, p=0.02). The overall length of stay was shorter during COVID-19 period (4.67 days vs. 4.12 days, p=0.052) and in the conservative treatment group (3.08 days vs. 4.47 days, p<0.001). However, the overall morbidity was lower during the COVID-19 period than before (17.2 % vs. 7.7 %, p=0.005) and for conservative therapy compared to appendicectomy (2 % vs. 14.3 %, p=0.016). There was no mortality documented. Conclusions: According to our findings the COVID-19 pandemic had a relevant impact on treatment of acute appendicitis, but it was possible to maintain the traditional diagnostic and treatment pathway. Although laparoscopic appendicectomy remains a recommended procedure, the conservative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis with excellent short-term outcome can be a safe alternative to surgery during potential new wave of COVID-19 pandemic and in the daily routine.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42-1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93-10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66-52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

[Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on robotic visceral surgery in Germany]. / Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie auf die robotische Viszeralchirurgie in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Robotic procedures are gaining more and more importance in visceral surgery and seem to develop into an indispensable tool in minimally invasive visceral surgery. In 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic caused unexpected changes in daily surgical routines with still ongoing challenges. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on robotic visceral procedures and the associated training provided in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a thorough evaluation of German hospitals and identified 89 surgical departments performing robotic visceral procedures. After extensive topic-related literature search an online questionnaire was developed. It included 35 questions referring to all relevant topics on robotic surgery, such as training programs and influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was sent via email three times to each department. Descriptive and subgroup analysis were performed. RESULTS: We reported a response to our questionnaire from 22 (24.7%) surgical departments and17 questionnaires were analyzable. The vast majority of them weresurgical departments of university hospitals (58.8%), 17.6% maximum care clinics and 23.5% main care clinics. Robotic procedures were performed for the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGI 88.2%), the hepatopancreaticobiliary system (HPB 82.4%), in the colorectal region (94.1%) and for hernias (35.3%). The relative proportion of robotic operations in comparison to all visceral procedures was between 0.3% and 15.4%. The average conversion rate was 4.6 ± 3.2% referring to 2020. All participating clinics used the robotic DaVinci® system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., CA, USA). In summary 22 robotic systems were used mainly in an interdisciplinary setting (82.4%). For teaching purposes, 7 departments (41.2%) provided a second robotic console. On average 13.2 ± 6.5% of surgeons per clinic were involved in robotic procedures. Defined operating room (OR) teams (82.4%) consisted of consultants, specialists and residents. Team training for surgeons and OR nurses was mainly (52.9%) based on clinic-specific programs. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the number of robotic procedures decreased in 70.0% of the participating departments compared to 2019 with the highest decline reported during the second quarter of 2020 (64.7%). Referring to this, staff shortage of non-surgical disciplines (anesthesiologists 35.3%, OR nurses 35.3%, intensive care medics 17.6%), COVID-19-specific regulations (58.8%) and limited capacities of intensive and intermediate care (47.1%) were specified as underlying causes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a decline in numbers of robotic procedures, robotic training was paused completely in assistance at the operating table in 23.5% and at the second console in 42.9%. CONCLUSION: Robotic visceral surgery is already implemented with a broad spectrum of operations in many German clinics of different care levels; however, the relative proportion of robotic procedures is low, when compared to the overall caseload of each clinic. Training concepts are heterogeneous and focused on experts. In surgeons with growing experience in robotic surgery, conversion rates are recorded to be very low. There was a negative impact on robotic case numbers and training provided in 2020 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a further endorsement of robotic training programs and an improvement of training designs seem to be essential tools in order to enforce robotic procedures in visceral surgery.

The LiMAx Test as Selection Criteria in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Liver failure is a crucial predictor for relevant morbidity and mortality after hepatic surgery. Hence, a good patient selection is mandatory. We use the LiMAx test for patient selection for major or minor liver resections in robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery and share our experience here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients in the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) who underwent robotic or laparoscopic minor or major liver surgery and received a LiMAx test for preoperative evaluation of the liver function. This cohort was divided in two groups: patients with normal (LiMAx normal) and decreased (LiMAx decreased) liver function measured by the LiMAx test. RESULTS: Forty patients were selected from the MD-MILS regarding the selection criteria (LiMAx normal, n = 22 and LiMAx decreased, n = 18). Significantly more major liver resections were performed in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (13 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Hence, the mean operation time was significantly longer in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (356.6 vs. 228.1 min; p = 0.003) and the intraoperative blood transfusion significantly higher in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (8 vs. 1; p = 0.027). There was no significant difference between the LiMAx groups regarding the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, liver surgery related morbidity or mortality, and resection margin status. CONCLUSION: The LiMAx test is a helpful and reliable tool to precisely determine the liver function capacity. It aids in accurate patient selection for major or minor liver resections in minimally invasive liver surgery, which consequently serves to improve patients' safety. In this way, liver resections can be performed safely, even in patients with reduced liver function, without negatively affecting morbidity, mortality and the resection margin status, which is an important predictive oncological factor.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary care hospital in Germany: higher rates of acute and gangrenous cholecystitis in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a global health crisis in 2020. This pandemic also had a negative impact on standard procedures in general surgery. Surgeons were challenged to find the best treatment plans for patients with acute cholecystitis. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in a tertiary care hospital in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the pandemic from March 22, 2020 (first national lockdown in Germany) to December 31, 2020. We then compared these to perioperative outcomes from the same time frame of the previous year. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the above-mentioned periods were enrolled. The pandemic group consisted of 100 and the control group of 82 patients. Subgroup analysis of elderly patients (> 65 years old) revealed significantly higher rates of acute [5 (17.9%) vs. 20 (58.8%); p = 0.001] and gangrenous cholecystitis [0 (0.0%) vs. 7 (20.6%); p = 0.013] in the "pandemic subgroup". Furthermore, significantly more early cholecystectomies were performed in this subgroup [5 (17.9%) vs. 20 (58.8%); p = 0.001]. There were no significant differences between the groups both in the overall and subgroup analysis regarding the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospitalization, morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients showed particularly higher rates of acute and gangrenous cholecystitis during the pandemic. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely in the COVID-19 era without negative impact on perioperative results. Therefore, we would assume that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be recommended for any patient with acute cholecystitis, including the elderly.

Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. METHODS: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

Tumor visualization and fluorescence angiography with indocyanine green (ICG) in laparoscopic and robotic hepatobiliary surgery - valuation of early adopters from Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Indocyanine green (ICG) is a fluorescent dye which was initially used for liver functional assessment. Moreover, it is of value for intraoperative visualization of liver segments and bile ducts or primary and secondary liver tumors. Especially in minimally invasive liver surgery, this is essential to enhance the precision of anatomical guided surgery and oncological quality. As early adopters of ICG implementation into laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery in Germany, we summarize the current recommendations and share our experiences. METHODS: Actual strategies for ICG application in minimally invasive liver surgery were evaluated and summarized during a review of the literature. Experiences in patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic-assisted liver surgery with intraoperative ICG staining between 2018 and 2020 from the Magdeburg registry for minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) were evaluated and the data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: ICG can be used to identify anatomical liver segments by fluorescence angiography via direct or indirect tissue staining. Fluorescence cholangiography visualizes the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts. Primary and secondary liver tumors can be identified with a sensitivity of 69-100%. For this 0.5 mg/kg body weight ICG must be applicated intravenously 2-14 days prior to surgery. Within the MD-MILS we identified 18 patients which received ICG for intraoperative tumor staining of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma, peritoneal HCC metastases, adenoma, or colorectal liver metastases. The sensitivity for tumor staining was 100%. In 27.8% additional liver tumors were identified by ICG fluorescence. In 39% a false positive signal could be detected. This occurred mainly in cirrhotic livers. CONCLUSIONS: ICG staining is a simple and useful tool to assess individual hepatic anatomy or to detect tumors during minimally invasive liver surgery. It may enhance surgical precision and improve oncological quality. False-positive detection rates of liver tumors can be reduced by respecting the tumor entity and liver functional impairments.

Incisional hernia after liver transplantation: mesh-based repair and what else?

PURPOSE: Incisional hernia (IH) is not uncommon after liver transplantation (LT). We investigated the long-term outcome of mesh-based hernia repair using an inlay-onlay technique. METHODS: Our analysis was based on a prospective collected database of all LT recipients from our hospital over a period of 15 years. We analyzed clinical data including the period between LT and hernia development, the size and localization of the hernia, the length of in-hospital stay, immunosuppression, and postoperative morbidity, as well as follow-up data. The median follow-up period was 120 (range 12-200) months. RESULTS: Among a total of 220 patients who underwent a collective 239 LTs, 29 (13%) were found to have an IH after a median period of 27.5 months (range 3-96 months). There were 12 (41%) men and 17 (59%) women, with a median age of 51 years. The median size of the IH was 13 cm (range 2-30 cm) and the median in-hospital stay was 6 days. Mild postoperative complications developed in seven patients, including two onlay mesh infections. One patient (3.4%) suffered recurrence. CONCLUSION: Mesh-based hernia repair using the inlay/onlay technique represents an effective and safe method for patients with an IH after LT, without additional risk from continuous immunosuppression.

Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases: an experience from a German Academic Center.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing in incidence. The aim of this work was to present our experience by reporting short-term and long-term outcomes after MILS for CRLM with comparative analysis of laparoscopic (LLS) and robotic liver surgery (RLS). METHODS: Twenty-five patients with CRLM, who underwent MILS between May 2012 and March 2020, were selected from our retrospective registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Thirteen of these patients underwent LLS and 12 RLS. Short-term and long-term outcomes of both groups were analyzed. RESULTS: Operating time was significantly longer in the RLS vs. the LLS group (342.0 vs. 200.0 min; p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic vs. the robotic group regarding length of postoperative stay (8.8 days), measured blood loss (430.4 ml), intraoperative blood transfusion, overall morbidity (20.0%), and liver surgery related morbidity (4%). The mean BMI was 27.3 (range from 19.2 to 44.8) kg/m2. The 30-day mortality was 0%. R0 resection was achieved in all patients (100.0%) in RLS vs. 10 patients (76.9%) in LLS. Major resections were carried out in 32.0% of the cases, and 84.0% of the patients showed intra-abdominal adhesions due to previous abdominal surgery. In 24.0% of cases, the tumor was bilobar, the maximum number of tumors removed was 9, and the largest tumor was 8.5 cm in diameter. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 84, 56.9, and 48.7%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall recurrence-free survival rates were 49.6 and 36.2%, respectively, without significant differences between RLS vs. LLS. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery for CRLM is safe and feasible. Minimally invasive resection of multiple lesions and large tumors is also possible. RLS may help to achieve higher rates of R0 resections. High BMI, previous abdominal surgery, and bilobar tumors are not a barrier for MILS. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections for CRLM provide similar long-term results which are comparable to open techniques.