Search

Recently, our LAP-01 trial demonstrated superiority of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) over conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with respect to continence at 3 mo.To compare the continence, potency, and oncological outcomes between RARP and LRP in the 12-mo follow-up.In this multicentre, randomised, patient-blinded controlled trial, patients referred for radical prostatectomy to four hospitals in Germany were randomly assigned (3:1) to undergo either RARP or LRP.Continence was assessed as a patient-reported outcome through validated questionnaires. Secondary endpoints included potency and oncological outcomes. Data were statistically analysed by bivariate tests and multivariable models.At 12 mo, follow-up data were available for 701 of 782 patients. Continence at 6 and 12 mo after surgery was better in RARP patients, however no longer statistically significant (p = 0.068 and 0.38, respectively). Patients who were potent at baseline and underwent nerve-sparing surgery reported significantly higher potency after RARP, as defined by the capability to maintain an erection sufficient for intercourse at 3 (p = 0.005), 6 (p = 0.018), and 12 mo (p = 0.013). There were no statistically significant differences in oncological outcomes at 12 mo. It is a limitation that the influence of different anastomotic techniques was not investigated in this study.Both LRP and RARP offer a high standard of therapy for prostate cancer patients. However, robotic assistance offers better functional outcomes in specific areas such as potency and early continence in patients who are eligible for nerve-sparing RP.We compared outcomes 12 mo after radical prostatectomy between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy. Both methods were equivalent with respect to oncological outcomes. Better recovery of continence in patients with robotic-assisted surgery, which was observed at 3 mo, blurred up to 12 mo. A benefit of robotic-assisted surgery was also observed in potency.

Background Initial learning curves are potentially shorter in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) than in conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). There is little evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, there is limited evidence how skills from LS transfer to RAS. Methods A randomized controlled, assessor blinded crossover study to compare how RAS naïve surgeons (n = 40) performed linear-stapled side-to-side bowel anastomoses in an in vivo porcine model with LS and RAS. Technique was rated using the validated anastomosis objective structured assessment of skills (A-OSATS) score and the conventional OSATS score. Skill transfer from LS to RAS was measured by comparing the RAS performance of LS novices and LS experienced surgeons. Mental and physical workload was measured with the NASA-task load index (NASA-Tlx) and the Borg-scale. Outcomes In the overall cohort, there were no differences between RAS and LS for surgical performance (A-OSATS, time, OSATS). Surgeons that were naïve in both LS and RAS had significantly higher A-OSATS scores in RAS (Mean (Standard deviation (SD)): LS: 48.0 ± 12.1; RAS: 52.0 ± 7.5); p = 0.044) mainly deriving from better bowel positioning (LS: 8.7 ± 1.4; RAS: 9.3 ± 1.0; p = 0.045) and closure of enterotomy (LS: 12.8 ± 5.5; RAS: 15.6 ± 4.7; p = 0.010). There was no statistically significant difference in how LS novices and LS experienced surgeons performed in RAS [Mean (SD): novices: 48.9 ± 9.0; experienced surgeons: 55.9 ± 11.0; p = 0.540]. Mental and physical demand was significantly higher after LS. Conclusion The initial performance was improved for RAS versus LS for linear stapled bowel anastomosis, whereas workload was higher for LS. There was limited transfer of skills from LS to RAS.

Background:. Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) has developed over the last 3 decades and is nowadays experiencing an increased interest from the surgical community. With increasing awareness of both the public and the surgical community on patient safety, optimization of training has gained importance. For implementation of MIPS we propose 3 training phases. The first phase focuses on developing basic skills and procedure specific skills with the help of simulation, biotissue drills, video libraries, live case observations, and training courses. The second phase consists of index procedures, fellowships, and proctoring programs to ensure patient safety during the first procedures. During the third phase the surgeons aim is to safely implement the procedure into standard practice while minimizing learning curve related excess morbidity and mortality. Case selection, skills assessment, feedback, and mentoring are important methods to optimize this phase. The residual learning curve can reach up to 100 cases depending on the surgeons’ previous experience, selection of cases, and definition of the parameters used to assess the learning curve. Adequate training and high procedural volume are key to implementing MIPS safely.

Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] − 0.60 [− 1.17, − 0.03]; RCTs: − 1.37 [− 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[− 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[− 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-019-07361-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Background Treatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies. Methods We performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 criteria and searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trails that compared an endoscopic treatment to a surgical treatment for patients with infected walled-off necrosis and included one of the main outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The main outcomes were mortality and new onset multiple organ failure. Prospero registration ID: CRD42019126033 Results Three RCTs with 190 patients were included. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference in mortality. However, patients in the endoscopic group had statistically significant lower odds of experiencing new onset multiple organ failure (odds ratio (OR) confidence interval [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.98]) and were statistically less likely to suffer from perforations of visceral organs or enterocutaneous fistulae (OR [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93]), and pancreatic fistulae (OR [CI] 0.09 [0.03, 0.28]). Patients with endoscopic treatment had a statistically significant lower mean hospital stay (Mean difference [CI] − 7.86 days [− 14.49, − 1.22]). No differences in bleeding requiring intervention, incisional hernia, exocrine or endocrine insufficiency or ICU stay were apparent. Overall certainty of evidence was moderate. Conclusion There seem to be possible benefits of endoscopic treatment procedure. Given the heterogenous procedures in the surgical group as well as the low amount of randomized evidence, further studies are needed to evaluate the combination of different approaches and appropriate timepoints for interventions.

To compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).LPD is used more commonly, but this surge is mostly based on observational data.We searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science for RCTs comparing minimally invasive to OPD for adults with benign or malignant disease requiring elective pancreaticoduodenectomy. Main outcomes were 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak, blood loss, reoperation, readmission, oncologic outcomes (R0-resection, lymph nodes harvested), and operative times. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool and the GRADE approach (Prospero registration ID: CRD42019120363).Three RCTs with a total of 224 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed there were no significant differences regarding 90-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, LOS, POPF, DGE, PPH, bile leak, reoperation, readmission, or oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. Operative times were significantly longer for LPD {MD [95% confidence interval (CI)] 95.44 minutes (24.06-166.81 minutes)}, whereas blood loss was lower for LPD [MD (CI) -150.99 mL (-168.54 to -133.44 mL)]. Certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.At current level of evidence, LPD shows no advantage over OPD. Limitations include high risk of bias and moderate to very low certainty of evidence. Further studies should focus on patient safety during LPD learning curves and the potential role of robotic surgery.

Background/purpose The dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been based on non-randomized studies and reviews of these. Aim of this study was to evaluate if the randomized evidence comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) supports these findings. Methods A prospectively registered (reviewregistry866) systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines comparing LLR to OLR for benign and malignant diseases was performed via Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL up to 31.12.2020. The main outcome was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0, certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results The search yielded 2080 results. 13 RCTs assessing mostly minor liver resections with 1457 patients were included. There were reduced odds of experiencing any complication (Odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0·42 [0·30, 0·58]) and severe complications (OR[CI]: 0·51 [0·31, 0·84]) for patients undergoing LLR. LOS was shorter (Mean difference (MD) [CI]: −2·90 [-3·88, −1·92] days), blood loss was lower (MD: [CI]: −115·41 [-146·08, −84·75] ml), and functional recovery was better for LLR. All other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions LLR shows significant postoperative benefits. RCTs assessing long-term outcomes and major resections are needed.

Background Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices. Methods In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment. Results Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC. Conclusions Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model. Registration number researchregistry6029 Graphic abstract

Das Rauchen ist in Deutschland die groste vermeidbare Ursache fur fruhzeitigen Tod. Das Netzwerk „Aufklarung gegen Tabak“ (AGT) ist eine im Jahr 2012 in Deutschland gegrundete Initiative, bei der sich inzwischen in 14 Landern an circa 80 Medizinfakultaten uber 3500 Medizinstudierende, Arztinnen und Arzte ehrenamtlich engagieren. In diesem Beitrag stellt die Initiative AGT ihr Konzept, sowie Aktivitaten, Ziele und begleitende Studien vor. Auf Schulebene adressiert das Programm 10- bis 15-jahrige Sekundarschuler und -schulerinnen. Erganzend zu einem multimodalen Ansatz werden bei den Schulbesuchen moderne Medien wie Facemorphing-Apps eingesetzt, die nicht nur von Schulern (45.000 pro Jahr in 14 Landern), sondern insgesamt bereits von uber 500.000 Menschen genutzt werden. Die Wirksamkeit der schulbasierten Intervention wird in randomisierten Langzeitstudien mit aktuell 20.000 Jugendlichen in Deutschland untersucht. Eine erste Langzeitstudie zeigte Hinweise auf einen protektiven Effekt bezuglich Rauchbeginn, besonders bei Schulerinnen, niedrigem Bildungsniveau und vorhandenem Migrationshintergrund. An 13 (von 28 teilnehmenden) deutschen Medizinfakultaten bildet das Programm jahrlich mehrere hundert angehende Arztinnen und Arzte in wissenschaftlich konzipierten Wahlfachern fur die fundierte Entwohnung von Patienten aus und sensibilisiert sie fur die Tabakepidemie. Approbierte Mitglieder treten als „Arzteverband Tabakpravention“ mit lokalen Bundestagsabgeordneten in den Dialog. AGT motiviert die angehende Medizinergeneration, initial uber Pravention im Schulsetting, sich der Herausforderung der nationalen Tabakkontrolle auch auf hochschulpolitischer und bundespolitischer Ebene zu stellen.

BACKGROUND Most smokers start smoking during their early adolescence under the impression that smoking entails positive attributes. Given the addictive nature of cigarettes, however, many of them might end up as long-term smokers and suffering from tobacco-related diseases. To prevent tobacco use among adolescents, the large international medical students’ network Education Against Tobacco (EAT) educates more than 40,000 secondary school students per year in the classroom setting, using evidence-based self-developed apps and strategies. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the school-based EAT intervention in reducing smoking prevalence among seventh-grade students in Germany. Additionally, we aimed to improve the intervention by drawing conclusions from our process evaluation. METHODS We conduct a cluster-randomized controlled trial with measurements at baseline and 9, 16, and 24 months postintervention via paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered by teachers. The study groups consist of randomized schools receiving the 2016 EAT curriculum and control schools with comparable baseline data (no intervention). The primary outcome is the difference of change in smoking prevalence between the intervention and control groups at the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are between-group differences of changes in smoking-related attitudes and the number of new smokers, quitters, and never-smokers. RESULTS A total of 11,268 students of both sexes, with an average age of 12.32 years, in seventh grade of 144 secondary schools in Germany were included at baseline. The prevalence of cigarette smoking in our sample was 2.6%. The process evaluation surveys were filled out by 324 medical student volunteers, 63 medical student supervisors, 4896 students, and 141 teachers. CONCLUSIONS The EAT cluster randomized trial is the largest school-based tobacco-prevention study in Germany conducted to date. Its results will provide important insights with regards to the effectiveness of medical student–delivered smoking prevention programs at school. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR DERR1-10.2196/13508

Background: Most smokers start smoking during their early adolescence under the impression that smoking entails positive attributes. Given the addictive nature of cigarettes, however, many of them might end up as long-term smokers and suffering from tobacco-related diseases. To prevent tobacco use among adolescents, the large international medical students’ network Education Against Tobacco (EAT) educates more than 40,000 secondary school students per year in the classroom setting, using evidence-based self-developed apps and strategies. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the school-based EAT intervention in reducing smoking prevalence among seventh-grade students in Germany. Additionally, we aimed to improve the intervention by drawing conclusions from our process evaluation. Methods: We conduct a cluster-randomized controlled trial with measurements at baseline and 9, 16, and 24 months postintervention via paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered by teachers. The study groups consist of randomized schools receiving the 2016 EAT curriculum and control schools with comparable baseline data (no intervention). The primary outcome is the difference of change in smoking prevalence between the intervention and control groups at the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are between-group differences of changes in smoking-related attitudes and the number of new smokers, quitters, and never-smokers. Results: A total of 11,268 students of both sexes, with an average age of 12.32 years, in seventh grade of 144 secondary schools in Germany were included at baseline. The prevalence of cigarette smoking in our sample was 2.6%. The process evaluation surveys were filled out by 324 medical student volunteers, 63 medical student supervisors, 4896 students, and 141 teachers. Conclusions: The EAT cluster randomized trial is the largest school-based tobacco-prevention study in Germany conducted to date. Its results will provide important insights with regards to the effectiveness of medical student–delivered smoking prevention programs at school. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13508