Search

Background Surgical phase recognition using computer vision presents an essential requirement for artificial intelligence-assisted analysis of surgical workflow. Its performance is heavily dependent on large amounts of annotated video data, which remain a limited resource, especially concerning highly specialized procedures. Knowledge transfer from common to more complex procedures can promote data efficiency. Phase recognition models trained on large, readily available datasets may be extrapolated and transferred to smaller datasets of different procedures to improve generalizability. The conditions under which transfer learning is appropriate and feasible remain to be established. Methods We defined ten operative phases for the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy through expert consensus. A dataset of 40 videos was annotated accordingly. The knowledge transfer capability of an established model architecture for phase recognition (CNN + LSTM) was adapted to generate a “Transferal Esophagectomy Network” (TEsoNet) for co-training and transfer learning from laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy, exploring different training set compositions and training weights. Results The explored model architecture is capable of accurate phase detection in complex procedures, such as Esophagectomy, even with low quantities of training data. Knowledge transfer between two upper gastrointestinal procedures is feasible and achieves reasonable accuracy with respect to operative phases with high procedural overlap. Conclusion Robust phase recognition models can achieve reasonable yet phase-specific accuracy through transfer learning and co-training between two related procedures, even when exposed to small amounts of training data of the target procedure. Further exploration is required to determine appropriate data amounts, key characteristics of the training procedure and temporal annotation methods required for success

Background: The failure-rate after primary antireflux surgery ranges from 3 to 30%. Reasons for failures are multifactorial. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the complex reasons for, and management of, failure after antireflux surgery. Methods: Patients were selected for redo-surgery after a diagnostic workup consisting of history and physical examination, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, quality-of-life assessment, screening for somatoform disorders, esophageal manometry, 24-hour-pH-impedance monitoring, and selective radiographic studies such as Barium-sandwich for esophageal passage and delayed gastric emptying. Perioperative and follow-up data were compiled between 2004 and 2017. Results: In total, 578 datasets were analyzed. The patient cohort undergoing a first redo-procedure (n = 401) consisted of 36 patients after in-house primary LF and 365 external referrals (mean age: 62.1 years [25-87]; mean BMI 26 [20-34]). The majority of patients underwent a repeated total or partial laparoscopic fundoplication. Major reasons for failure were migration and insufficient mobilization during the primary operation. With each increasing number of required redo-operations, the complexity of the redo-procedure itself increased, follow-up quality-of-life decreased (GIQLI: 106; 101; and 100), and complication rate increased (intraoperative: 6,4-10%; postoperative: 4,5-19%/first to third redo). After three redo-operations, resections were frequently necessary (morbidity: 42%). Conclusions: Providing a careful patient selection, primary redo-antireflux procedures have proven to be highly successful. It is often the final chance for a satisfying result may be achieved upon performing a second redo-procedure. A third revision may solve critical problems, such as severe pain and/or inadequate nutritional intake. When resection is required, quality of life cannot be entirely normalized.

Background: Despite proton pump inhibitors being a powerful therapeutic tool, laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) has proven successful in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), through mechanical augmentation of a weak antireflux barrier and the advantages of minimally invasive access. A critical patient selection for LF, based on thorough preoperative assessment, is important for the management of GERD-patients. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview on the management of GERD-patients treated by primary LF in a specialized center and to illustrate the possible outcome after several years. Methods: Patients were selected after going through diagnostic workup consisting of patient's history and physical examination, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, assessment of gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, screening for somatoform disorders, functional assessment by esophageal manometry, (impedance)-24-hour-pH-monitoring, and selective radiographic studies. The indication for LF was based on EAES-guidelines. Either a floppy and short Nissen fundoplication was performed or a posterior Toupet-hemifundoplication was chosen. A long-term follow-up assessment was attempted after surgery. Results: In total, n = 1131 patients were evaluated (603 males; 528 females; mean age; 48.3 years; and mean body mass index: 27). The mean duration between onset of symptoms and surgery was 8 years. Nissen: n = 873, Toupet: n = 258; conversion rateerativ: 0.5%; morbidity 4%, mortality: 1 (1131). Mean follow-up (n = 898; 79%): 5.6 years; pre/post-op results: esophagitis: 66%/12.1%; Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: median: 92/119; daily proton pump inhibitors-intake after surgery: 8%; and operative revisions 4.3%. Conclusions: In conclusion, our data show that careful patient selection for laparoscopic fundoplication and well-established technical concepts of mechanical sphincter augmentation can provide satisfying results in the majority of patients with seve

Depending on the extent of gastric resection, namely total, proximal or distal gastrectomy, different methods of reconstruction are available. These reconstructive procedures have not changed with the implementation of minimally invasive or robotic techniques in general but the spectrum of possible anastomotic techniques has been substantially expanded. Functional, in particular nutritional disorders with subsequent impairment of the health-related quality of life, are often diagnosed after gastric resections. The partial preservation of a gastric reservoir has a positive impact on the extent of these disorders. After total gastrectomy, the placement of a jejunal pouch significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative dumping symptoms. Following proximal gastrectomy, double-tract reconstruction offers certain functional advantages as compared to the simple Roux-Y reconstruction. In Germany, these reconstructive techniques are only used to a low extent and should be include in the repertoire of oncological gastric surgery with appropriate indications.

Background. Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome. Objective. What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous? Material and methods. Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature. Results. A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result. Conclusion. A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

Background According to international guidelines neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The treatment approach depends on the tumor entity (adenocarcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma). Objective What benefits do patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer have from neoadjuvant treatment? Is there information in the international literature on whether a particular neoadjuvant treatment is preferred? Does the type of neoadjuvant treatment depend on factors other than the tumor entity? Is there a standard in the drug composition of chemotherapy or a clearly defined chemoradiotherapy regimen? Material and methods A review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature were carried out. Results Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer benefit from a neoadjuvant treatment. The current data situation for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus demonstrates a better response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus can be treated with combined neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as well as by chemotherapy alone. Both lead to an improvement in the prognosis. There are often differences particularly among radiation treatment regimens in the different centers. Furthermore, the localization of the tumor can also be important for treatment decisions. Conclusion A neoadjuvant treatment is clearly recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Currently, chemoradiotherapy according to the CROSS protocol is preferred for squamous cell carcinoma. For adenocarcinoma both chemotherapy according to the FLOT protocol as well as chemoradiotherapy in a neoadjuvant treatment concept lead to an improvement in the prognosis.