Georg R. Linke

Virtual Reality Training Versus Blended Learning of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Laparoscopic Novices

AbstractThis study compared virtual reality (VR) training with low cost-blended learning (BL) in a structured training program.Training of laparoscopic skills outside the operating room is mandatory to reduce operative times and risks.Laparoscopy-naïve medical students were randomized in 2 groups stratified for sex. The BL group (n = 42) used E-learning for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and practiced basic skills with box trainers. The VR group (n = 42) trained basic skills and LC on the LAP Mentor II (Simbionix, Cleveland, OH). Each group trained 3 × 4 hours followed by a knowledge test concerning LC. Blinded raters assessed the operative performance of cadaveric porcine LC using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS). The LC was discontinued when it was not completed within 80 min. Students evaluated their training modality with questionnaires.The VR group completed the LC significantly faster and more often within 80 min than BL (45% v 21%, P = .02). The BL group scored higher than the VR group in the knowledge test (13.3 ± 1.3 vs 11.0 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). Both groups showed equal operative performance of LC in the OSATS score (49.4 ± 10.5 vs 49.7 ± 12.0, P = 0.90). Students generally liked training and felt well prepared for assisting in laparoscopic surgery. The efficiency of the training was judged higher by the VR group than by the BL group.VR and BL can both be applied for training the basics of LC. Multimodality training programs should be developed that combine the advantages of both approaches.

Transvaginal access for NOTES: a cohort study of microbiological colonization and contamination.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Animal data and limited clinical evidence suggest a low incidence of infection following transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). However, a systematic microbiological evaluation has not yet been carried out. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the extent of microbiological contamination of the peritoneal cavity caused by the transvaginal access for NOTES and the impact of preoperative vaginal disinfection on vaginal colonization. PATIENTS AND METHODS Consecutive female patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were offered either transvaginal rigid-hybrid cholecystectomy (tvCCE) or conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients who opted for tvCCE were prospectively evaluated between February and June 2010. Disinfection in patients undergoing tvCCE included hexetidine tablets and octenidine applied vaginally. All patients received a single dose of perioperative cefuroxime. Swabs were obtained from the posterior fornix and the peritoneal cavity at different intervals. RESULTS Of 32 patients, 27 (84 %) opted to undergo tvCCE. One patient (4 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.7 % - 18.3 %) had a positive bacterial culture in the Douglas pouch prior to transvaginal access compared with two patients (7 %; 95 %CI 2.1 % - 23.4 %) following colpotomy closure (P = 1.000). Vaginal disinfection significantly decreased vaginal bacterial load (P = 0.001) and bacterial growth in routine cultures (P < 0.001); in 16 patients (59 %; 95 %CI 40.7 % - 75.5 %) vaginal swabs were sterile after disinfection. No postoperative surgical site infections occurred (95 %CI 0 % - 12.5 %). CONCLUSIONS In selected patients and following vaginal antisepsis, transvaginal access for NOTES is associated with microbiological contamination of the peritoneal cavity in a minority of patients, indicating a low risk of peritoneal contamination caused by the transvaginal access.

Use of Mesh in Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Risk-Benefit Analysis

Introduction Mesh augmentation seems to reduce recurrences following laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPHR). However, there is an uncertain risk of mesh-associated complications. Risk-benefit analysis might solve the dilemma. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational clinical studies (OCSs) comparing laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty (LMAH) with laparoscopic mesh-free hiatoplasty (LH) with regard to recurrences and complications. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to determine potential benefits of LMAH. All data regarding LMAH were used to estimate risk of mesh-associated complications. Risk-benefit analysis was performed using a Markov Monte Carlo decision-analytic model. Results Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs and 9 OCSs including 915 patients revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate for LMAH compared to LH (pooled proportions, 12.1% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.04). Complication rates were comparable in both groups (pooled proportions, 15.3% vs. 14.2%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.65; p = 0.94). The systematic review of LMAH data yielded a mesh-associated complication rate of 1.9% (41/2121; 95% CI, 1.3% to 2.5%) for those series reporting at least one mesh-associated complication. The Markov Monte Carlo decision-analytic model revealed a procedure-related mortality rate of 1.6% for LMAH and 1.8% for LH. Conclusions Mesh application should be considered for LPHR because it reduces recurrences at least in the mid-term. Overall procedure-related complications and mortality seem to not be increased despite of potential mesh-associated complications.

One or two trainees per workplace in a structured multimodality training curriculum for laparoscopic surgery? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial – DRKS00004675

BackgroundLaparoscopy training courses have been established in many centers worldwide to ensure adequate skill learning before performing operations on patients. Different training modalities and their combinations have been compared regarding training effects. Multimodality training combines different approaches for optimal training outcome. However, no standards currently exist for the number of trainees assigned per workplace.MethodsThis is a monocentric, open, three-arm randomized controlled trial. The participants are laparoscopically-naive medical students from Heidelberg University. After a standardized introduction to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with online learning modules, the participants perform a baseline test for basic skills and LC performance on a virtual reality (VR) trainer. A total of 100 students will be randomized into three study arms, in a 2:2:1 ratio. The intervention groups participate individually (Group 1) or in pairs (Group 2) in a standardized and structured multimodality training curriculum. Basic skills are trained on the box and VR trainers. Procedural skills and LC modules are trained on the VR trainer. The control group (Group C) does not receive training between tests. A post-test is performed to reassess basic skills and LC performance on the VR trainer. The performance of a cadaveric porcine LC is then measured as the primary outcome using standardized and validated ratings by blinded experts with the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. The Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgical skills score and the time taken for completion are used as secondary outcome measures as well as the improvement of skills and VR LC performance between baseline and post-test. Cognitive tests and questionnaires are used to identify individual factors that might exert influence on training outcome.DiscussionThis study aims to assess whether workplaces in laparoscopy training courses for beginners should be used by one trainee or two trainees simultaneously, by measuring the impact on operative performance and learning curves. Possible factors of influence, such as the role of observing the training partner, exchange of thoughts, active reflection, model learning, motivation, pauses, and sympathy will be explored in the data analysis. This study will help optimize the efficiency of laparoscopy training courses.Trial registration numberDRKS00004675

Repair of Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernias–Is a Fundoplication Needed? A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

BACKGROUND The need for a fundoplication during repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias (PEH) remains unclear. Prevention of gastroesophageal reflux represents a trade-off against the risk of fundoplication-related side effects. The aim of this trial was to compare laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty with simple cardiophrenicopexy (LMAH-C) with laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty with fundoplication (LMAH-F) in patients with PEH. STUDY DESIGN The study was designed as a patient- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial, registration number: DRKS00004492 (www.germanctr.de/). Patients with symptomatic PEH were eligible and assigned by central randomization to LMAH-C or LMAH-F. Endpoints were postoperative gastroesophageal reflux, complications, and quality of life 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS Forty patients (9 male, 31 female) were randomized. Patients were well matched for baseline characteristics. At 3 months, the DeMeester score was higher after LMAH-C compared with LMAH-F (40.9 ± 39.9 vs. 9.6 ± 17; p = 0.048). At 12 months, the reflux syndrome score was higher after LMAH-C compared with LMAH-F (1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 1.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.020). In 53% of LMAH-C patients and 17% of LMAH-F patients, postoperative esophagitis was present (p = 0.026). Values of dysphagia (2.1 ± 1.6 vs 1.9 ± 1.4; p = 0.737), gas bloating (2.6 ± 1.4 vs 2.8 ± 1.4; p = 0.782), and quality of life (116.0 ± 16.2 vs 115.9 ± 15.8; p = 0.992) were similar. Relevant postoperative complications occurred in 4 (10%) patients and did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic repair of PEH should be combined with a fundoplication to avoid postoperative gastroesophageal reflux and resulting esophagitis. Fundoplication-related side effects do not appear to be clinically relevant. Multicenter randomized trials are required to confirm these findings.

Surgical intensive care unit - essential for good outcome in major abdominal surgery?

PurposeSurgical intensive care units (ICU) play a pivotal role in perioperative care of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Differences in quality of care provided by medical staff in ICUs may be linked to improved outcome. This review aims to elucidate the relationship between quality of care at various ICUs and patient outcome, with the ultimate aim of identifying key measures for achieving optimal outcome.MethodsWe reviewed the literature in PubMed to identify current ICU structural and process concepts and variations before evaluating their respective impact on quality of care and outcome in major abdominal surgery.ResultsICU leadership, nurse and physician staffing, and provision of an intermediate care unit are important structural components that impact on patients’ outcome. A “mixed ICU” model, with intensivists primarily caring for the patients in close cooperation with the primary physician, seems to be the most effective ICU model. Surgeons’ involvement in intensive care is essential, and a close cooperation between surgeons and anesthesiologists is vital for good outcome. Current general process concepts include early mobilization, enteral feeding, and optimal perioperative fluid management. To decrease failure-to-rescue rates, procedure-specific intensive care processes are particularly focused on the early detection, assessment, and timely and consistent treatment of complications.ConclusionsSeveral structures and processes in the ICU have an impact on outcome in major abdominal surgery. ICU structures and care processes connected with optimal outcome could be transmitted to other centers to improve outcome, independent of procedure volume.

Laparoscopic transgastric circumferential stapler-assisted vs. endoscopic esophageal mucosectomy in a porcine model

Background and study aims Extensive endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for Barretts esophagus (BE) may lead to stenosis. Laparoscopic, transgastric, stapler-assisted mucosectomy (SAM) with the retrieval of a circumferential specimen is proposed. Methods SAM was evaluated in two phases. The feasibility of SAM and the quality of specimens were assessed in eight animals. The mucosal healing was evaluated in a 6-week survival experiment comparing SAM (n = 6) with EMR (n = 6). The ratio of the esophageal lumen width (REL) at the resection level measured on fluoroscopy at 6 weeks divided by the width immediately after resection was compared. Results In all animals, a circular mucosectomy specimen was successfully obtained, with a median area of 492 mm2 (interquartile range [IQR] 426 - 573 mm2) and 941 mm2 (IQR 813 - 1209 mm2) using a 21 mm and 25 mm stapler, respectively. In the survival experiments, symptomatic stenosis developed in two animals after EMR and in none after SAM. The REL was 0.27 (0.18 - 0.39) and 0.96 (0.9 - 1.04; P < 0.0001) for EMR and SAM, respectively. Conclusions SAM provides a novel technique for en bloc mucosectomy in BE. In contrast to EMR, mucosal healing after SAM was not associated with stenosis up to 6 weeks after intervention.

Meta‐analysis of hybrid natural‐orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery

Hybrid natural‐orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), combining access through a natural orifice with small‐sized abdominal trocars, aims to reduce pain and enhance recovery. The objective of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare pain and morbidity in hybrid NOTES and standard laparoscopy.

New device for transrectal trocar placement and rectal sealing for NOTES: a porcine in vivo and human cadaver study.

BackgroundTo date, hybrid NOTES, combining transvaginal and laparoscopic access, represents the most popular clinically applied NOTES approach enabling surgical handling comparable to laparoscopic surgery. The transrectal route could be used in a similar way; however, suitable devices facilitating feasible transrectal access and rectal sealing are lacking.MethodsIn collaboration with Karl Storz GmbH, we tailored a rectoscope and trocars to facilitate transrectal trocar placement and rectal sealing for hybrid NOTES procedures using rigid instruments. Five German Landrace pigs underwent transrectal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy using the new devices. In a second experiment, the transferability to human anatomy was assessed in a human cadaver.ResultsUsing the new devices, transrectal trocar placement and rectal sealing proved to be feasible in both experiments. Transrectal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy could be performed without complications.ConclusionThe presented devices provide a tailored operating platform allowing precise transrectal trocar insertion and feasible sealing of the rectotomy. Consequently, these new instruments may pave the way for transrectal hybrid NOTES procedures and could succeed to clinical use in future.

Laparoscopic Mesh-augmented Hiatoplasty With Cardiophrenicopexy Versus Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Double-center Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE Laparoscopic mesh-augmented hiatoplasty with cardiophrenicopexy (LMAH-C) might represent an alternative treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and may provide durable reflux control without fundoplication. The expected benefit is the prevention of fundoplication-related side effects. Aim of the present trial was to compare LMAH-C with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in patients with GERD. METHODS In a double-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) patients with proven GERD were eligible and assigned by central randomization to either LMAH-C (n = 46) or LNF (n = 44). The indigestion subscore of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire (GSRS) indicating gas-related symptoms as possible side effects of LNF was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints comprised pH testing and endoscopy and other symptoms measured by the GSRS, dysphagia, and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. The follow-up period was 36 months. RESULTS Indigestion subscore (LMAH-C 2.9 ± 1.5 vs LNF 3.7 ± 1.6; P = 0.031) but not dysphagia (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 2.3 ± 1.7; P = 0.302) and quality of life (106.9 ± 25.5 vs 105.8 ± 24.9; P = 0.838) differed between the groups at 36 months postoperatively. Although the reflux subscore improved in both groups, it was worse in LMAH-C patients (2.5 ± 1.6 vs 1.6 ± 1.0; P = 0.004) corresponding to a treatment failure of 77.3% in LMAH-C patients and of 34.1% in LNF patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS LNF is more effective in the treatment of GERD than LMAH-C. Procedure-related side effects seem to exist but do not affect the quality of life. Laparoscopic fundoplication therefore remains the standard surgical treatment for GERD.