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.

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.

Background: Secondary malignant tumors of the pancreas are rare, representing 2–5% of all pancreatic malignancies. Nevertheless, the pancreas is one of the target organs in cases of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC). Additionally, recurrent metastasis may occur. Surgical resection remains the best and prognostically most favorable therapeutic option in cases of solitary pancreatic metastasis. Aim: To review retrospectively the clinical tumor registry of the University Hospital of Magdeburg, Germany, for this rare entity, performing a clinical systematic single-center observational study (design). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive patients who had undergone pancreatic resection for metastatic CCRC was performed in a single high-volume certified center for pancreatic surgery in Germany from 2010 to 2022. Results: All patients (n = 17) included in this study had a metachronous metastasis from a CCRCC. Surgery was performed at a median time interval of 12 (range, 9–16) years after primary resection for CCRCC. All 17 patients were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Three of those patients (17.6%) presented with recurrent metastasis in a different part of the pancreas during follow-up. In a total of 17 patients, including those with recurrent disease, a surgical resection was performed; Pancreatoduodenectomy was performed in 6 patients (35%); left pancreatectomy with splenectomy was performed in 7 patients (41%). The rest of the patients underwent either a spleen-preserving pancreatic tail resection, local resection of the tumor lesion or a total pancreatectomy. The postoperative mortality rate was 6%. Concerning histopathological findings, seven patients (41%) had multifocal metastasis. An R0 resection could be achieved in all cases. The overall survival at one, three and five years was 85%, 85% and 72%, respectively, during a median follow-up of 43 months. Conclusions: CCRC pancreatic metastases can occur many years after the initial treatment of the primary tumor. Surgery for such a malignancy seems feasible and safe; it offers very good short- and long-term outcomes, as indicated. A repeated pancreatic resection can also be safely performed.

Background/Objectives: In patients diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis (UAA), the absence of calcified deposits or stones, called appendicoliths, often leads to consideration of non-operative treatment (NOT), despite the notable treatment failure rate associated with this approach. Previous research has indirectly estimated the prevalence of appendicoliths to range between 15% and 38% retrospectively by CT scan, intraoperative palpation, and pathology report, thereby potentially missing certain concrements. Our hypothesis proposes that this reported prevalence significantly underestimates the occurrence of appendicoliths, which could explain the high failure rate of 29% of patients with appendicitis observed with NOT. Methods: In our prospective study, conducted with a cohort of 56 adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis (AA), we employed intraoperative extracorporeal incisions of the vermiform appendix, in addition to standard diagnostic methods. Results: Our findings revealed 50% more appendicoliths by intraoperative incision (n = 36, p < 0.001) compared to preoperative imaging (n = 24). Appendicoliths were present in 71.4% (n = 40, p < 0.001) of AA patients. Conclusions: These results suggest that conventional diagnostic procedures plausibly underestimate the actual prevalence of appendicoliths, potentially elucidating the frequent treatment failures observed in NOT approaches applied to patients with UAA.

Background: Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis. Methods: This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio. Results: The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques. Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality.

Introduction: The certification of oncological units as colorectal cancer centers (CrCCs) has been proposed to standardize oncological treatment and improve the outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The proportion of patients with CRC in Germany that are treated by a certified center is around 53%. Lately, the effect of certification on the treatment outcomes has been critically discussed. Aim: Our aim was to investigate the treatment outcomes in patients with rectal carcinoma at certified CrCCs, in German hospitals of different medical care levels. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicentric database (AN Institute) of adult patients who underwent surgery for rectal carcinoma between 2002 and 2016. We included 563 patients from 13 hospitals of different medical care levels (basic, priority, and maximal care) over periods of 5 years before and after certification. Results: The certified CrCCs showed a significant increase in the use of laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery (5% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). However, we observed a significantly prolonged mean duration of surgery in certified CrCCs (161 Min. vs. 192 Min., p < 0.001). The overall morbidity did not improve (32% vs. 38%, p = 0.174), but the appearance of postoperative stool fistulas decreased significantly in certified CrCCs (2% vs. 0%, p = 0.036). Concerning the overall in-hospital mortality, we registered a positive trend in certified centers during the five-year period after the certification (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.190). The length of preoperative hospitalization (preop. LOS) was shortened significantly (4.71 vs. 4.13 days, p < 0.001), while the overall length of in-hospital stays was also shorter in certified CrCCs (20.32 vs. 19.54 days, p = 0.065). We registered a clear advantage in detailed, high-quality histopathological examinations regarding the N, L, V, and M.E.R.C.U.R.Y. statuses. In the performed subgroup analysis, a significantly longer overall survival after certification was registered for maximal medical care units (p = 0.029) and in patients with UICC stage IV disease (p = 0.041). In patients with UICC stage III disease, we registered a slightly non-significant improvement in the disease-free survival (UICC III: p = 0.050). Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate an improvement in terms of the treatment quality and outcomes in certified CrCCs, which is enforced by certification-specific aspects such as a more differentiated surgical approach, a lower rate of certain postoperative complications, and a multidisciplinary approach. Further prospective clinical trials are necessary to investigate the influence of certification in the treatment of CRC patients.