Laparoscopic colorectal interventions in sigmoid diverticulitis are, for the most part, carried out as elective procedures for peridiverticulitis, stenosis, or recurrent attacks of inflammation. The conversion, complication, and mortality rates associated with these interventions are acceptable. Laparoscopic procedures in Hinchey stages I to IV sigmoid diverticulitis and in the presence of fistula and bleeding are more likely to be associated with complications, and should be carried out only by highly experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

IntroductionAlthough many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.MethodsA European working group, “BioMesh Study Group”, composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.ResultsThe cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.ConclusionThe routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

The feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic colorectal approach is demonstrated clearly. The current study shows that the laparoscopic or laparoscopically assisted approach to colorectal surgery is not associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leaks. Morbidity and mortality rates with this method approximate those seen with conventional colorectal surgery.

Primary non-curative gastric resection can reduce the incidence of severe tumor-related complications and can prolong overall survival in selected subgroups. In particular, younger patients with no more than two tumor locations should be considered for this procedure.

BPMN and t.BPM are sufficiently suitable for the planned modelling and imaging of CP. The application in medicine is new, and transfer from the industrial process management is in principle possible. BPMN-CP may be used for teaching and training, patient information and quality management. The graphical image is clearly structured and appealing. Even though the efficiency in the creation of BPMN-CP increases markedly after the training phase, high amounts of manpower and time are required. The most sensible and consequent application of a BPMN-CP would be the direct integration into the hospital computer system. The integration of a modelling language, such as BPMN, into the hospital computer systems could be a very sensible approach for the development of new hospital information systems in the future.

Although for its definitive management, recurrent hernia requires a reliable operative technique, current data do not support the recommendation of any of the currently available procedures as the gold standard. In a representative patient population with recurrent hernia, we were able to demonstrate that TEP achieves very good results in terms of re-recurrence rate, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and rehabilitation. Prerequisites for the reliable and low-complication application of the method are a high level of standardization of the procedure and an advanced learning curve.

IntroductionThe component separation technique (CST) was introduced to abdominal wall reconstruction to treat large, complex hernias. It is very difficult to compare the published findings because of the vast number of technical modifications to CST as well as the heterogeneity of the patient population operated on with this technique.Material and MethodsThe main focus of the literature search conducted up to August 2017 in Medline and PubMed was on publications reporting comparative findings as well as on systematic reviews in order to formulate statements regarding the various CSTs.ResultsCST without mesh should no longer be performed because of too high recurrence rates. Open anterior CST has too high a surgical site occurrence rate and henceforth should only be conducted as endoscopic and perforator sparing anterior CST. Open posterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release (TAR) produce better results than open anterior CST. To date, no significant differences have been found between endoscopic anterior, perforator sparing anterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest, very promising alternative. The systematic use of biologic meshes cannot be recommended for CST.ConclusionCST should always be performed with mesh as endoscopic or perforator sparing anterior or posterior CST. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest development.

Background Although up to 9% of patients with gastric cancer develop liver metastases, liver resection is rarely performed because of co-existing non-curative factors. Furthermore, the benefit of liver resection is still controversially discussed. Our goal was to investigate the outcome of patients who underwent liver resection or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatic metastasized gastric cancer. Methods Retrospectively collected data from a prospectively maintained database were analyzed from 15 patients who underwent liver resection or RFA for liver metastases from gastric cancer. Results Overall 5-year survival and median survival were 27% and 48 months for resected/RFA patients. The perioperative complication rate was low. One patient has been tumor-free for 90 months now. Conclusions Liver resection in patients with hepatic metastasized gastric cancer is beneficial and safe if an R0 situation can be achieved. RFA might be a useful alternative in those patients where surgery is not feasible.