Search

Zusammenfassung Einleitung Der Einsatz roboterassistierter Operationen verzeichnet in der Viszeralchirurgie gegenwärtig einen stetigen Zuwachs. Im Jahr 2020 hat die COVID-19-Pandemie den klinischen und chirurgischen Alltag unerwartet wesentlich verändert. Wir haben in einer Umfrage den Status der roboterassistierten Viszeralchirurgie in Deutschland sowie die gegenwärtigen Ausbildungskonzepte evaluiert und deren Veränderungen unter dem Einfluss der COVID-19-Pandemie untersucht. Material und Methoden In einer umfangreichen Recherche wurden 89 Kliniken identifiziert, welche ein Robotersystem für die Viszeralchirurgie 2020 einsetzten. Diese Kliniken wurden über eine webbasierte anonyme Umfrage mit 35 Fragen dreimal kontaktiert. Die Fragen bezogen sich auf die Einsatzgebiete eines Operationsroboters in der Viszeralchirurgie, die dazugehörige klinische Ausbildung und den Einfluss der COVID-19-Pandemie auf das bestehende Programm. Ergebnisse Von den angeschriebenen Kliniken haben 22 (24,7%) eine Rückmeldung gegeben. Hiervon waren 17 (19,1%) Fragebögen auswertbar. Es beteiligten sich 58,8% Universitätsklinika, 17,6% Maximalversorger und 23,5% Schwerpunktkrankenhäuser an der Studie. Der Operationsroboter wurde am oberen Gastrointestinaltrakt (OGIT; 88,2%), am hepatopankreatikobiliären System (HPB; 82,4%) und im kolorektalen Bereich (KRK; 94,1%) sowie bei der Hernienversorgung (35,3%) eingesetzt. Der relative Anteil robotischer Eingriffe am operierten Gesamtkollektiv lag dabei zwischen 0,3% und 15,4%. Die Konversionsraten für 2020 lag im Mittel bei 4,6 ± 3,2%. Die Operationsroboter wurden zum Großteil im interdisziplinären Setting wechselweise mit anderen chirurgischen Disziplinen (82,4%) genutzt. Zu Lehrzwecken stand in sieben Kliniken (41,2%) eine zweite Konsole zur Verfügung. Die Ausbildungsstrukturen waren sehr heterogen und nur 13,2 ± 6,5% der Chirurg*innen pro Klinik waren in das Roboterprogramm involviert. In 82,4% existierten feste Teams, die sich aus Ober‑, Fach- und Assistenzärzt*innen zusammensetzen und in 76,5% wurden Ärzt*innen und Pflegepersonal über klinikinterne Ausbildungsprogramme geschult. Die COVID-19-Pandemie hatte einen Fallzahlrückgang robotischer Eingriffe im Vergleich zu 2019 bei 70% der Kliniken vor allem im zweiten Jahresquartal 2020 (64,7%) zur Folge. Dies wurde auf Personalmangel nichtchirurgischer Disziplinen (Anästhesie 35,3%, OP-Pflege 35,3%, Intensivmedizin 17,6%), interne Regularien (58,8%) und begrenzte Intensiv- oder Überwachungskapazitäten (47,1%) zurückgeführt. Die COVID-19-Pandemie führte in der robotischen Ausbildung teilweise bei der Assistenz am OP-Tisch (23,5%) und der Assistenz an der zweiten Konsole (42,9%) zu einem kompletten Ausbildungsstopp. Ausschlaggebend für diese Entwicklung war überwiegend der Rückgang der Operationszahlen. Schlussfolgerung Die Robotik wird mittlerweile in einem breiten Spektrum der Viszeralchirurgie an Kliniken mit unterschiedlichen Versorgungsschwerpunkten in Deutschland eingesetzt. Der relative Anteil der Eingriffe am Gesamtspektrum ist allerdings noch gering. Roboterassistierte Eingriffe sind expertenfokussiert und es bestehen sehr heterogene Ausbildungskonzepte. Ein Lernerfolg mit konstanten und niedrigen Konversionsraten ist nach wenigen Jahren mit zunehmender Erfahrung zu erkennen. Die COVID-19-Pandemie hatte insgesamt einen negativen Einfluss auf die robotischen OP-Fallzahlen und die damit verbundenen Ausbildungsmöglichkeiten bei freien chirurgischen Personalressourcen. Hier ist eine kreative Gestaltung optimierter Ausbildungsmodalitäten erforderlich.

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.

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.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.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%.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.EINLEITUNG: Der Einsatz roboterassistierter Operationen verzeichnet in der Viszeralchirurgie gegenwärtig einen stetigen Zuwachs. Im Jahr 2020 hat die COVID-19-Pandemie den klinischen und chirurgischen Alltag unerwartet wesentlich verändert. Wir haben in einer Umfrage den Status der roboterassistierten Viszeralchirurgie in Deutschland sowie die gegenwärtigen Ausbildungskonzepte evaluiert und deren Veränderungen unter dem Einfluss der COVID-19-Pandemie untersucht.In einer umfangreichen Recherche wurden 89 Kliniken identifiziert, welche ein Robotersystem für die Viszeralchirurgie 2020 einsetzten. Diese Kliniken wurden über eine webbasierte anonyme Umfrage mit 35 Fragen dreimal kontaktiert. Die Fragen bezogen sich auf die Einsatzgebiete eines Operationsroboters in der Viszeralchirurgie, die dazugehörige klinische Ausbildung und den Einfluss der COVID-19-Pandemie auf das bestehende Programm.Von den angeschriebenen Kliniken haben 22 (24,7%) eine Rückmeldung gegeben. Hiervon waren 17 (19,1%) Fragebögen auswertbar. Es beteiligten sich 58,8% Universitätsklinika, 17,6% Maximalversorger und 23,5% Schwerpunktkrankenhäuser an der Studie. Der Operationsroboter wurde am oberen Gastrointestinaltrakt (OGIT; 88,2%), am hepatopankreatikobiliären System (HPB; 82,4%) und im kolorektalen Bereich (KRK; 94,1%) sowie bei der Hernienversorgung (35,3%) eingesetzt. Der relative Anteil robotischer Eingriffe am operierten Gesamtkollektiv lag dabei zwischen 0,3% und 15,4%. Die Konversionsraten für 2020 lag im Mittel bei 4,6 ± 3,2%. Die Operationsroboter wurden zum Großteil im interdisziplinären Setting wechselweise mit anderen chirurgischen Disziplinen (82,4%) genutzt. Zu Lehrzwecken stand in sieben Kliniken (41,2%) eine zweite Konsole zur Verfügung. Die Ausbildungsstrukturen waren sehr heterogen und nur 13,2 ± 6,5% der Chirurg*innen pro Klinik waren in das Roboterprogramm involviert. In 82,4% existierten feste Teams, die sich aus Ober‑, Fach- und Assistenzärzt*innen zusammensetzen und in 76,5% wurden Ärzt*innen und Pflegepersonal über klinikinterne Ausbildungsprogramme geschult. Die COVID-19-Pandemie hatte einen Fallzahlrückgang robotischer Eingriffe im Vergleich zu 2019 bei 70% der Kliniken vor allem im zweiten Jahresquartal 2020 (64,7%) zur Folge. Dies wurde auf Personalmangel nichtchirurgischer Disziplinen (Anästhesie 35,3%, OP-Pflege 35,3%, Intensivmedizin 17,6%), interne Regularien (58,8%) und begrenzte Intensiv- oder Überwachungskapazitäten (47,1%) zurückgeführt. Die COVID-19-Pandemie führte in der robotischen Ausbildung teilweise bei der Assistenz am OP-Tisch (23,5%) und der Assistenz an der zweiten Konsole (42,9%) zu einem kompletten Ausbildungsstopp. Ausschlaggebend für diese Entwicklung war überwiegend der Rückgang der Operationszahlen.Die Robotik wird mittlerweile in einem breiten Spektrum der Viszeralchirurgie an Kliniken mit unterschiedlichen Versorgungsschwerpunkten in Deutschland eingesetzt. Der relative Anteil der Eingriffe am Gesamtspektrum ist allerdings noch gering. Roboterassistierte Eingriffe sind expertenfokussiert und es bestehen sehr heterogene Ausbildungskonzepte. Ein Lernerfolg mit konstanten und niedrigen Konversionsraten ist nach wenigen Jahren mit zunehmender Erfahrung zu erkennen. Die COVID-19-Pandemie hatte insgesamt einen negativen Einfluss auf die robotischen OP-Fallzahlen und die damit verbundenen Ausbildungsmöglichkeiten bei freien chirurgischen Personalressourcen. Hier ist eine kreative Gestaltung optimierter Ausbildungsmodalitäten erforderlich.

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.

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.

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.

Purpose Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. Methods The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. Results We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). Conclusion Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.

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 &lt, 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.

After successful implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the field of surgical oncology -especially for malignant disorders of the liver and the colon- [1-11], robotic surgery gains more attention and acceptance in everyday practice..

1.1 Background: Hepatic resections are classically subdivided into major and minor resections. These definitions are important for the perioperative management as major resections are associated with a higher incidence of complications like liver failure or bile leakage. However, other perioperative factors might also influence patient outcome. The present study aims to evaluate the significance of major and minor hepatic resection as well as other factors on the postoperative course. For this purpose we analysed data retrospectively from our centre. 1.2 Patients and methods: The study was based on a prospective database of all liver resections performed at the University Hospital Mannheim between January 1998 and December 2010 (a total of 627 consecutive liver resections). In these patients 135 major hepatectomies, and 192 minor resections were performed. Wedge resections were excluded from analysis. Variables independently associated with the occurrence of complications were identified using a binary regression analysis model. 1.3 Results: 186 (56.9%) of the patients were male, the mean age of all patients was 61.9 years (SD 11.5). The rate of patients with postoperative liver failure was 3.4% and 30-day mortality was 5.5%. Mean length of stay was 15.6 days. Surgical and non-specific complications were significantly more frequent in major hepatectomies. However, we found that the performed procedure was no independent risk factor for the incidence of specific complications, liver failure and mortality. Multivariate analysis could reveal different other independent risk factors for the incidence of complications and mortality. Among these were ASA classification, low preoperative serum albumin and elevated preoperative levels of ALAT. 1.4 Conclusion: Our data suggests that quality and quantity of complications does not only depend on the extent of the performed procedure. Our analysis identified additional independent risk factors. These risk factors, as well as the performed procedure, should be considered in the perioperative management.