Closed continuous Irrigation for the Therapy of Pyogenic Flexor Tenosynovitis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Pyogenic flexor tenosynovitis within the flexor tendon sheath requires urgent treatment to avoid tendon necrosis and loss of the finger. Objective of this article is the treatment by revision and postoperative continuous irrigation via a closed irrigation system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2016 54 patients with a pyogenic flexor tenosynovitis were treated by revision and closed continuous irrigation. Besides the evaluation of the patient´s records with respect to the involved fingers and hand, duration of hospitalisation, and required revision surgery, 33 patients (19 males, 14 females) with an average age of 51 (8-85) years were re-examined on average after 21 (4-38) months. Re-examination included measurements of the mobility of the involved fingers and thumbs, grip and pinch strength, pain using the numeric rating scale (BRS), and DASH score. The overall result was graded according to the grading system by Buck-Gramcko for flexor tendon reconstruction. RESULTS: Hospital stay was 9 (3-26) days on average. In 11 patients revision surgery was required including 3 re-installations of the continuous irrigation system, 2 ray amputations, and 1 finger amputation at the level of the proximal interphalangeal joint. The re-examined patients averaged a grip strength of 84 (23-163) % of the unaffected side. On average pain at rest was 0,2 (0-4), pain at daily living activity 1,2 (0-8) on the NRS, the DASH score 16,8 (0-58) points. According to the rating system for flexor tendon function there were one poor, one fair, 5 good and 26 excellent results. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous irrigation by a closed irrigation system for pyogenic flexor tenosynovitis is a successful procedure with a low amputation rate. The functional results are predominantly good and excellent.

Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection-comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center.

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.

A falciform ligament flap surface sealing technique for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery.

Whether sealing the hepatic resection surface after liver surgery decreases morbidity is still unclear. Nevertheless, various methods and materials are currently in use for this procedure. Here, we describe our experience with a simple technique using a mobilized falciform ligament flap in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). We retrospectively analyzed the charts from 46 patients who received minor MILS between 2011 and 2019 from the same surgical team in a university hospital setting in Germany. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 22 patients received robotic-assisted liver resection. Sixteen patients in the laparoscopic group and fourteen in the robotic group received a falciform ligament flap (FLF) to cover the resection surface after liver surgery. Our cohort was thus divided into two groups: laparoscopic and robotic patients with (MILS + FLF) and without an FLF (MILS-FLF). Twenty-eight patients (60.9%) in our cohort were male. The overall mean age was 56.8 years (SD 16.8). The mean operating time was 249 min in the MILS + FLF group vs. 235 min in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.682). The mean blood loss was 301 ml in the MILS + FLF group vs. 318 ml in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.859). Overall morbidity was 3.3% in the MILS + FLF group vs. 18.8% in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.114). One patient in the MILS-FLF group (overall 2.2%), who underwent robotic liver surgery, developed bile leakage, but this did not occur in the MILS + FLF group. Covering the resection surface of the liver after minor minimally invasive liver resection with an FLF is a simple and cost-effective technique that does not prolong surgical time or negatively affect other perioperative parameters. In fact, it is a safe add-on step during MILS that may reduce postoperative morbidity. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to substantiate our proof of concept and results.