Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to determine empirically which electronic databases contribute best to a literature search in surgical systematic reviews.MethodsFor ten published systematic reviews, the systematic literature searches were repeated in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. On the basis of these reviews, a gold standard set of eligible articles was created. Recall (%), precision (%), unique contribution (%), and numbers needed to read (NNR) were calculated for each database, as well as for searches of citing references and of the reference lists of related systematic reviews (hand search).ResultsCENTRAL yielded the highest recall (88.4%) and precision (8.3%) for randomized controlled trials (RCT), MEDLINE for non-randomized studies (NRS; recall 92.6%, precision 5.2%). The most effective combination of two databases plus hand searching for RCT was MEDLINE/CENTRAL (98.6% recall, NNR 97). Adding EMBASE marginally increased the recall to 99.3%, but with an NNR of 152. For NRS, the most effective combination was MEDLINE/Web of Science (99.5% recall, NNR 60).ConclusionsFor surgical systematic reviews, the optimal literature search for RCT employs MEDLINE and CENTRAL. For surgical systematic reviews of NRS, Web of Science instead of CENTRAL should be searched. EMBASE does not contribute substantially to reviews with a surgical intervention.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are central to generating high-quality evidence in the surgical field but face unique methodological and practical challenges, including recruitment, follow-up, blinding and ensuring patient-centred outcomes. Patient and public involvement (PPI) has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance the relevance, quality and impact of surgical research by actively involving patients throughout the whole research process. Despite growing recognition of its value, the integration and reporting of PPI in surgical RCTs remain inconsistent, and no systematic evaluation has yet addressed its application within general and abdominal surgery.Methods and analysisRCTs in general and abdominal surgery published since 2014 will be identified through systematic searches of the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL. This systematic review and primary (meta-epidemiological) statistical analysis will assess the reporting prevalence, implementation extent and quality of PPI over time. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 (GRIPP2)-SF checklist and Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0 tool will be used to evaluate PPI reporting and study quality. To enable a comparison between studies reporting PPI and those that do not, propensity score matching will be performed to identify non-PPI studies with similar population and design characteristics. Subsequently, regression analyses will be employed to investigate potential associations between PPI reporting and various trial characteristics, including patient recruitment and retention, outcome selection and methodological quality. The Patient Advisory Board of the Study Centre of the German Society of Surgery is actively engaged in all phases of the systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethical approval. Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed scientific journal, as well as distributed in a lay format to the patient community and to the broader public.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42024524426.

IntroductionOutcome after surgery depends on both patient-related as well as procedure-related risks. Complications after surgery are a significant burden to patients and to the health system. A vast amount of often unstructured data from different sources are generated during surgery, which contain valuable information associated with outcome. Advances in computer hardware and machine learning now increasingly facilitate the development of prediction models in standardised, parametric, information-rich areas such as the perioperative setting. For the development and validation of risk scores and prediction models, high-fidelity data sources are required to arrive at meaningful and reliable predictions. However, data quality standards in retrospective studies are rarely met. Therefore, the prospective Heidelberg Perioperative Deep Data Registry and Biomaterial Bank (HeiPoDD - Registry and Bio Bank) was started to implement a clinical data base and a corresponding biobank merging the entirety of available clinical records.Methods and analysisThe HeiPoDD - Registry and Bio Bank is a study-driven, prospective, single-centre observational registry data base and biomaterial bank. It contains data and material from eligible patients who give informed consent and undergo elective non-cardiac high-risk surgery at the surgical centre of the Heidelberg University Hospital. The screening for eligibility started in January 2022, with no maximum sample size specified in advance. Routine data are recorded and stored during hospital stay and potential readmissions within 90 days after index surgery. The data are merged with the potentially available genome, proteome, flow cytometry, and bio signal data. Endpoints are obtained from routine observations, stored data in the hospital information system and follow-up visits. Further, data and biological specimens from separate perioperative studies with the patients’ consent can be transferred into the HeiPoDD - Registry and Bio Bank as well. This large-scale data collection will allow the calculation of endpoint-specific prediction models using logistic regression models as well as machine learning models. The first 1040 patients included in the HeiPoDD - Registry and Bio Bank are also included in the HeiPoDD study.Ethics and disseminationThe trial protocol and subsequent amendments were approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (S-745/2021). Participating patients’ data will be entered only in pseudonymised form. Data and biomaterials will be kept for up to 30 years. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.Trial registration numberDRKS00025924, registered on 2021-11-12.

IntroductionPerioperative adverse events increase morbidity and mortality. The rate and severity of complications and the risk for subsequent mortality are increased after high-risk procedures and in elevated-risk patients. Over the past decades, a multitude of prognostic studies identified perioperative risk factors at the population level. However, to allow for the advancement of precision surgery strategies, improved risk prediction on the individual patient level is warranted. Comprehensive, consecutive, multisource, structured, high-quality patient-related and procedure-related data sets, together with thorough follow-up and combined with state-of-the-art machine-learning analyses, are needed to facilitate precise prediction of perioperative complications. Therefore, we designed and currently conduct the Heidelberg Perioperative Deep Data study (HeiPoDD). Here, we report the rationale and design of the HeiPoDD study.Methods and analysisHeiPoDD is a prospective, single-centre, exploratory cohort study aiming to build up a large-scale deep-data base and corresponding biomaterial collection. 1040 adult patients planned for elective high-risk, non-cardiac surgery for any indication at Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany will be included. The obtained study-specific data set includes clinical data, lab values, genome- and proteome analysis as well as plasma, serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected before and at days 1, 3 and 7 postsurgery. Urine samples are collected before and at day 1 postsurgery. Structured follow-up for perioperative complications such as redo-surgery, length of intensive care stay or length of hospital stay is conducted at days 30, 90 and 1 year postsurgery and for disease progression and survival after 3 and 5 years postsurgery. All study data will be transferred to the HeiPoDD registry to allow merging with all available routine clinical data from the hospital information system including imaging studies as well as haemodynamic and respiratory biosignals. Biomaterials will be stored in the HeiPoDD biomaterial bank to allow further analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe trial protocol and amendments were approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (S-758/2021). The protocol is registered with the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00024625). Participating patients’ data will be recorded only in pseudonymised form. After completion of the study, data collected during the study will be kept on file for up to 30 years. Biomedical samples collected during the study and entered into the biobank will be held for the same amount of time. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.

BackgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common and serious complication after distal pancreatectomy. Many attempts at lowering fistula rates have led to unrewarding insignificant results as still up to 30% of the patients suffer from clinically relevant POPF. Therefore, the development of new innovative methods and procedures is still a cornerstone of current surgical research.The cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) device is a well-known ultrasound-based parenchyma transection method, often used in liver and neurosurgery which has not yet been thoroughly investigated in pancreatic surgery, but the first results seem very promising.MethodsThe CUSA-1 trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial with two parallel study groups. This single-centre trial is assessor and patient blinded. A total of 60 patients with an indication for open distal pancreatectomy will be intraoperatively randomised after informed consent. The patients will be randomly assigned to either the control group with conventional pancreas transection (scalpel or stapler) or the experimental group, with transection using the CUSA device. The primary safety endpoint of this trial will be postoperative complications ≥grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint to investigate the effect will be the rate of POPF within 30 days postoperatively according to the ISGPS definition. Further perioperative outcomes, including postpancreatectomy haemorrhage, length of hospital stay and mortality will be analysed as secondary endpoints.DiscussionBased on the available literature, CUSA may have a beneficial effect on POPF occurrence after distal pancreatectomy. The rationale of the CUSA-1 pilot trial is to investigate the safety and feasibility of the CUSA device in elective open distal pancreatectomy compared with conventional dissection methods and gather the first data on the effect on POPF occurrence. This data will lay the groundwork for a future confirmatory multicentre randomised controlled trial.Ethics and disseminationThe CUSA-1 trial protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (No. S-098/2022). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and summaries will be provided in lay language to study participants and their relatives.Trial registration numberDRKS00027474.

IntroductionThe only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG).Methods and analysisThis superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy.The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access.Trial registration numberDRKS00025765.

IntroductionNeoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (n(C)RT) followed by resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) constitutes the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer of the middle and lower third. However, n(C)RT has demonstrated no significant impact on overall survival but is associated with adverse effects, including impaired sphincter and sexual function. We hypothesise that omitting n(C)RT in selected patients with a clear circumferential resection margin (CRM) >1 mm as determined through preoperative MRI is not inferior regarding local recurrence rate within 3 years after surgery. That treatment approach may show fewer adverse effects and be more cost-effective.Methods and analysisSelective neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer patients (SELREC) is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, open, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. The experimental intervention involves performing TME surgery without n(C)RT. In contrast, the control intervention adheres to German S3-guidelines, incorporating neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) with a dosage of 5×5 Gy or a total of 50.4 Gy. Additionally, if applicable, concomitant chemotherapy (CT) based on 5-fluorouracil is administered, followed by TME surgery within less than 12 weeks. Adjuvant treatment according to guidelines is allowed depending on the (y)pTNM stage.The inclusion criteria for this study encompass adult patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the rectum in whom the main tumour mass is located less than 12 cm away from the anal verge, as assessed via proctoscopy. Additionally, eligible participants are required to have a preoperative tumour stage determined by MRI of either T1 or T2 with lymph node involvement (N1) or T3 with no lymph node involvement (N0) or with lymph node involvement (N1) and no distant metastases (M0). The assessment of a clear CRM >1 mm, based on MRI, is another prerequisite for inclusion. A total of 1074 patients in approximately 35 centres are planned to be allocated to the trial.The primary endpoint of the trial is local recurrence within 3 years after surgery. The primary estimand is based on the full analysis set using a logistic mixed model (margin 3%). The first secondary endpoint is no/minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score at 2 years after surgery, and further secondary endpoints include survival outcomes and quality of life. Safety analysis involves describing the frequencies of major intervention-specific complications, such as the acute toxicity of n(C)RT according to CTCAE and perioperative morbidity and mortality according to Clavien-Dindo criteria.SELREC is financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been prospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register.Previously, the study had been approved by the responsible ethics committee of Heidelberg and the local ethics committees of the collaborating institutions before patient enrolment. Any protocol deviation that has an impact on relevant parameters such as study design, endpoints or patient safety will be reported to the responsible ethics committees.The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and on institutional websites.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00030567.

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective method to treat neuropathic pain; however, it is challenging to compare different stimulation modalities in an individual patient, and thus, it is largely unknown which of the many available SCS modalities is most effective. Specifically, electrodes leading out through the skin would have to be consecutively connected to different, incompatible SCS devices and be tested over a time period of several weeks or even months. The risk of wound infections for such a study would be unacceptably high and blinding of the trial difficult. The PARS-trial seizes the capacity of a new type of wireless SCS device, which enables a blinded and systematic intra-patient comparison of different SCS modalities over extended time periods and without increasing wound infection rates. Methods The PARS-trial is designed as a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled multi-center crossover study. It will compare the clinical effectiveness of the three most relevant SCS paradigms in individual patients. The trial will recruit 60 patients suffering from intractable neuropathic pain of the lower extremities, who have been considered for SCS therapy and were already implanted with a wireless SCS device prior to study participation. Over a time period of 35 days, patients will be treated consecutively with three different SCS paradigms (“burst,” “1 kHz,” and “1.499 kHz”) and placebo stimulation. Each SCS paradigm will be applied for 5 days with a washout period of 70 h between stimulation cycles. The primary endpoint of the study is the level of pain self-assessment on the visual analogue scale after 5 days of SCS. Secondary, exploratory endpoints include self-assessment of pain quality (as determined by painDETECT questionnaire), quality of life (as determined by Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), anxiety perception (as determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and physical restriction (as determined by the Oswestry Disability Index). Discussion Combining paresthesia-free SCS modalities with wireless SCS offers a unique opportunity for a blinded and systematic comparison of different SCS modalities in individual patients. This trial will advance our understanding of the clinical effectiveness of the most relevant SCS paradigms. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00018929 . Registered on 14 January 2020.

Background Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination. Methods The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. Discussion The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517 . Registered on 24th June 2019.

IntroductionPancreatic resections are an important field of surgery worldwide to treat a variety of benign and malignant diseases. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a frequent and critical complication after partial pancreatectomy and affects up to 50% of patients. POPF increases mortality, prolongs the postoperative hospital stay and is associated with a significant economic burden. Despite various scientific approaches and clinical strategies, it has not yet been possible to develop an effective preventive tool. The SmartPAN indicator is the first surgery-ready medical device for direct visualisation of pancreatic leakage already during the operation. Applied to the surface of pancreatic tissue, it detects sites of biochemical leak via colour reaction, thereby guiding effective closure and potentially mitigating POPF development.Methods and analysisThe ViP trial is a prospective single-arm, single-centre first in human study to collect data on usability and confirm safety of SmartPAN. A total of 35 patients with planned partial pancreatectomy will be included in the trial with a follow-up of 30 days after the index surgery. Usability endpoints such as adherence to protocol and evaluation by the operating surgeon as well as safety parameters including major intraoperative and postoperative complications, especially POPF development, will be analysed.Ethics and disseminationFollowing the IDEAL-D (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long term study of Device development and surgical innovation) framework of medical device development preclinical in vitro, porcine in vivo, and human ex vivo studies have proven feasibility, efficacy and safety of SmartPAN. After market approval, the ViP trial is the IDEAL Stage I trial to investigate SmartPAN in a clinical setting. The study has been approved by the local ethics committee as the device is used exclusively within its intended purpose. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study will provide a basis for a future randomised controlled interventional trial to confirm clinical efficacy of SmartPAN.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trial Register DRKS00027559, registered on 4 March 2022.