Search

Aim: Sufficient liver function is crucial in extracellular matrix growth, hemostasis, and wound healing. Repeated abdominal surgery is a known risk factor for the development of wound complications. This study aimed to evaluate this high-risk constellation in patients undergoing associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) and repeated liver resections (RLR) in comparison to single liver resection (SLR)., Method: Forty patients who underwent ALPPS between 2011 and 2020 were evenly matched with patients undergoing RLR or SLR (n = 40 per group) using propensity scores. Postoperative outcomes were compared and factors associated with wound complications were analyzed., Results: Postoperative wound complications were significantly more frequent in ALPPS group (p = 0.001). The reoperation rate was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.143). However, surgical reintervention due to wound complications occurred more frequently in the ALPPS group in relation to RLR and SLR (17.5% vs. 7.5% and 5% respectively). Length of stay was significantly longer in the ALPPS group (p = 0.033). ALPPS was an independent risk factor for postoperative wound complication (OR = 8.55, 95% CI:1.07-68.44, p = 0.043). Risk factor analysis identified age ≥ 60 years (OR = 27.64, 95% CI:3.09-246.75, p = 0.003), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 (OR = 30.21, 95% CI:3.35-271.83, p = 0.002), and low postoperative albumin levels (OR = 168.41, 95% CI:7.76-3651.18, p = 0.001) as independent predictors of postoperative wound complications after major liver resection., Conclusion: Patients undergoing ALPPS and RLR are faced with a high risk of developing wound complications. Older age, obesity, a history of previous abdominal surgery, and a decreased postoperative albumin level were independent risk factors for wound complications., Competing Interests: Declarations Financial support This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-to-profit sectors. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer., Methods: This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted., Results: Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences., Conclusion: Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research., Trial-Registration: German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC., Methods: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list., Results: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics., Conclusion: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach., Purpose: This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis., Conclusions: For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Bowel dysfunction after spinal surgery is often underestimated and if not treated in a timely manner can lead to undesirable surgical interventions or fatal complications. The current medical literature primarily focuses on bowel dysfunction as a result of spinal injury., Objective: The purpose of this review is to explore this topic in evaluating current evidence regarding the causes of acute bowel dysfunction after elective spinal surgery, primarily the thoracolumbar spine. Since available evidence for recommendations of treatment is scarce, an interdisciplinary management approach for treatment of bowel dysfunction following spinal surgery is also formulated., Material and Methods: An extensive literature search was carried out on PubMed. Keywords that were used in the search included bowel dysfunction, obstruction, postoperative ileus, spinal surgery, spinal fusion, constipation, opioid-induced constipation, colonic pseudo-obstruction, ischemic colitis, immobility-induced bowel changes, epidural anesthesia and diet. Relevant studies were chosen and included in the review. The treatment approach used in the spine center of a university hospital was included., Results: Current research mainly focuses on investigating the nature and symptomatology of chronic bowel dysfunction after spinal cord injury. Emphasis on the acute phase of bowel dysfunction in patients after elective spinal surgery is lacking. The comorbidities that exacerbate bowel dysfunction postoperatively are well-defined. There has been refinement and expansion of the pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment that could be implemented. Enough evidence exists to provide sufficient care., Conclusion: Management of acute bowel dysfunction after spinal surgery requires a comprehensive and individualized approach, encompassing comorbidities, behavioral changes, medications and surgery. Close supervision and timely treatment could minimize further complications. Research is required to identify patients who are at a higher risk of developing bowel dysfunction after specific spinal procedures.

Purpose: Tracheostomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures in intensive care medicine. The two main approaches are open surgical tracheostomy (ST) and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT). This systematic review summarizes and analyzes the existing evidence regarding perioperative and postoperative parameters of safety., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, and MEDLINE to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complications of ST and PDT and to define the strategy with the lower risk of potentially life-threatening events. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook., Results: Twenty-four citations comprising 1795 procedures (PDT: n = 926; ST: n = 869) were found suitable for systematic review. No significant difference in the risk of a potentially life-threatening event (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05, P = 0.62, I 2  = 47%) was found between PDT and ST. There was no difference in mortality (RD - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.88, I 2  = 0%). An increased rate of technical difficulties was shown for PDT (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01, 0.08, P = 0.01, I 2  = 60%). Stomal infection occurred more often with ST (RD - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.08 to - 0.02, P = 0.003, I 2  = 60%). Both techniques can be safely performed on the ICU. Meta-analysis of the duration of procedure was not possible owing to high heterogeneity (I 2  = 99%)., Conclusion: ST and PDT are safe techniques with low incidence of complications. Both techniques can be performed successfully in an ICU setting. ST can be performed on every patient whereas PDT is restricted by several contraindications like abnormal anatomy, previous surgery, coagulopathies, or difficult airway of the patient., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015021967.