@article{BaurRamserKelleretal.2021,
  author    = {Baur, Johannes and Ramser, Michaela and Keller, Nicola and Muysoms, Filip and D{\"o}rfer, J{\"o}rg and Wiegering, Armin and Eisner, Lukas and Dietz, Ulrich A.},
  title     = {Robotic hernia repair II. English version},
  series = {Der Chirurg},
  volume    = {92},
  journal   = {Der Chirurg},
  number    = {Suppl 1},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00104-021-01479-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-323866},
  pages     = {S15-S26},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Endoscopic management of umbilical and incisional hernias has adapted to the limitations of conventional laparoscopic instruments over the past 30 years. This includes the development of meshes for intraperitoneal placement (intraperitoneal onlay mesh, IPOM), with antiadhesive coatings; however, adhesions do occur in a significant proportion of these patients. Minimally invasive procedures result in fewer perioperative complications, but with a slightly higher recurrence rate. With the ergonomic resources of robotics, which offers angled instruments, it is now possible to implant meshes in a minimally invasively manner in different abdominal wall layers while achieving morphologic and functional reconstruction of the abdominal wall. This video article presents the treatment of ventral and incisional hernias with mesh implantation into the preperitoneal space (robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair, r‑ventral TAPP) as well as into the retrorectus space (r-Rives and robotic transabdominal retromuscular umbilical prosthetic repair, r‑TARUP, respectively). The results of a cohort study of 118 consecutive patients are presented and discussed with regard to the added value of the robotic technique in extraperitoneal mesh implantation and in the training of residents.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LillaKesslerWeilandetal.2021,
  author    = {Lilla, Nadine and Kessler, Almuth F. and Weiland, Judith and Ernestus, Ralf-Ingo and Westermaier, Thomas},
  title     = {Case Report: A Case Series Using Natural Anatomical Gaps — Posterior Cervical Approach to Skull Base and Upper Craniocervical Meningiomas Without Bone Removal},
  series = {Frontiers in Surgery},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Surgery},
  issn      = {2296-875X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fsurg.2021.666699},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-244613},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Removal of anteriorly located tumors of the upper cervical spine and craniovertebral junction (CVJ) is a particular surgical challenge. Extensive approaches are associated with pain, restricted mobility of neck and head and, in case of foramen magnum and clivus tumors, with retraction of brainstem and cerebellum. Methods: Four symptomatic patients underwent resection of anteriorly located upper cervical and lower clivus meningiomas without laminotomy or craniotomy using a minimally invasive posterior approach. Distances of natural gaps between C0/C1, C1/C2, and C2/C3 were measured using preoperative CT scans and intraoperative lateral x-rays. Results: In all patients, safe and complete resection was conducted by the opening of the dura between C0/C1, C1/C2, and C2/C3, respectively. There were no surgical complications. Local pain was reported as very moderate by all patients and postoperative recovery was extremely fast. All tumors had a rather soft consistency, allowing mass reduction prior to removal of the tumor capsule and were well separable from lower cranial nerves and vascular structures. Conclusion: If tumor consistency is appropriate for careful mass reduction before removal of the tumor capsule and if tumor margins are not firmly attached to crucial structures, then upper cervical, foramen magnum, and lower clivus meningiomas can be safely and completely removed through natural gaps in the CVJ region. Both prerequisites usually become clear early during surgery. Thus, this tumor entity may be planned using this minimally invasive approach and may be extended if tumor consistency turns out to be less unfavorable for resection or if crucial structures cannot be easily separated from the tumor.},
  language  = {en}
}