Purpose Once open abdomen therapy has succeeded, the problem of closing the abdominal wall must be addressed. We present a new four-stage procedure involving the application of a two-component mesh and vacuum conditioning for abdominal wall closure of even large defects. The aim is to prevent the development of a giant ventral hernia and the eventual need for the repair of the abdominal wall. Methods Nineteen of 62 patients treated by open abdomen over a two-year period could not receive primary abdominal wall closure. To achieve closure in these patients, we applied the following four-stage procedure: stage 1: abdominal damage control and conditioning of the abdominal wall; stage 2: attachment of a tailored two-component mesh of polyglycolic acid (PGA) and large pore polypropylene (PP) in intraperitoneal position (IPOM) plus placement of a vacuum bandage; stage 3: vacuum therapy for 3–4 weeks to allow granulation of the mesh and optimization of dermatotraction; stage 4: final skin suture. During stage 3, eligible patients were weaned from respirator and mobilized. Results The abdominal wall gap in the 19 patients ranged in size from 240 cm2 to more than 900 cm2. An average of 3.44 vacuum dressing changes over 19 days were required to achieve 60–100 % granulation of the surface area, so final skin suture could be made. Already in stage 3, 14 patients (73.68 %) could be weaned from respirator an average of 6.78 days after placement of the two-component mesh; 6 patients (31.57 %) could be mobilized on the edge of the bed and/or to a bedside chair after an average of 13 days. No mesh-related hematomas, seromas, or intestinal fistulas were observed. Conclusion The four-stage procedure presented here is a viable option for achieving abdominal wall closure in patients treated with open abdomen, enabling us to avoid the development of planned giant ventral hernias. It has few complications and has the special advantage of allowing mobilization of the patients before final skin closure. Long-term course in a large number of patients must still confirm this result.

Hintergrund Die geringe Anzahl operativ zu versorgender Körperhöhlenverletzungen erfordert ein Umdenken in der chirurgischen Aus- und Weiterbildung. Ein entsprechendes Kursformat wird seit 2014 über die DGAV angeboten. Um Berechtigung, Bedarf, Nutzen und Erfolg eines solchen Kursformates zu erheben, erfolgte eine Evaluation durch die bisherigen Kursteilnehmer. Material und Methoden Kursevaluation und zusätzliche Onlinebefragung der bisherigen Kursteilnehmer hinsichtlich Alter, Geschlecht, Ausbildungsstand, Fachrichtung, Versorgungsstufe des Krankenhauses, notfallchirurgischer Erfahrungen, der Häufigkeit chirurgischer Notfallversorgungen, Teilnahme an anderen Kursformaten, Erfahrungen nach der Kursteilnahme, Einschätzung der aktuellen Fort- und Weiterbildungssituation und Finanzierung solcher Kurse. Ergebnisse Insgesamt 142 Kursteilnehmer evaluierten ihre Kursteilnahme, zusätzlich beantworteten 83 den Onlinefragebogen. Über 90 % berichteten von einem nachhaltigen positiven Einfluss des Kurses auf ihr notfallchirurgisches Handeln. Mehr als die Hälfte konnte von konkreten Notfallsituationen berichten, die sie aufgrund der Kursteilnahme besser bewältigen konnten. In der Notfallversorgung erfahrene Chirurgen bewerteten den eigenen Lernerfolg durch die Kursteilnahme signifikant häufiger positiv als ihre weniger erfahrenen Kollegen. Keinen Einfluss auf den Lernerfolg hatten eine Ober- oder Chefarztposition, die Versorgungsstufe des Krankenhauses, das Alter oder Geschlecht der Teilnehmer. Die Mehrheit der antwortenden Chirurgen befürwortet die Integration eines solchen Kursformates in die chirurgische Weiterbildung und fordert hierzu eine finanzielle Unterstützung. Schlussfolgerung Kursformate, in denen notfallchirurgische Strategien und Fähigkeiten vermittelt werden, sind etabliert und werden sehr positiv evaluiert. Die Fort- und Weiterbildung in notfallchirurgischen Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen liegt im gesellschaftlichen Interesse und zumindest anteilig auch in ihrer Verantwortung.

Introduction: During damage control surgery for blunt abdominal traumata simultaneous duodenal perforations can be missed making secondary sufficient surgical treatment challenging. Endoluminal vacuum (EndoVAC™) therapy has been shown to be a revolutionary option but has anatomical and technical limits. Presentation of the case: A 59-year old man with hemorrhagic shock due to rupture of the mesenteric root after blunt abdominal trauma received damage control treatment. Within a scheduled second-look, perforation of the posterior duodenal wall was identified. Due to local and systemic conditions, further surgical treatment was limited. Decision for endoscopic treatment was made but proved to be difficult due to the distal location. Finally, double-barreled jejunal stoma was created for transstomal EndoVAC™ treatment. Complete leakage healing was achieved and jejunostomy reversal followed subsequently. Discussion: During damage control surgery simultaneous bowel injuries can be missed leading to life-threatening complications with limited surgical options. EndoVAC™ treatment is an option for gastrointestinal perforations but has anatomical limitations that can be sufficiently shifted by a transstomal approach for intestinal leakage. Conclusion: In trauma related laparotomy complete mobilization of the duodenum is crucial. As ultima ratio, transstomal EndoVAC™ is a safe and feasible option and can be considered for similar cases.

Background The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2), has escalated rapidly to a global pandemic stretching healthcare systems worldwide to their limits. Surgeonshave had to immediately react to this unprecedented clinical challenge by systematically repurposing surgical wards. Purpose To provide a detailed set of guidelines developed in a surgical ward at University Hospital Wuerzburg to safelyaccommodate the exponentially rising cases of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients without compromising the care of emergencysurgery and oncological patients or jeopardizing the well-being of hospital staff. Conclusions The dynamic prioritization of SARS-CoV-2 infected and surgical patient groups is key to preserving life whilemaintaining high surgical standards. Strictly segregating patient groups in emergency rooms, non-intensive care wards andoperating areas prevents viral spread while adequately training and carefully selecting hospital staff allow them to confidentlyand successfully undertake their respective clinical duties.

Background The impact of hospital volume after rectal cancer surgery is seldom investigated. This study aimed to analyse the impact of annual rectal cancer surgery cases per hospital on postoperative mortality and failure to rescue. Methods All patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and who had a rectal resection procedure code from 2012 to 2015 were identified from nationwide administrative hospital data. Hospitals were grouped into five quintiles according to caseload. The absolute number of patients, postoperative deaths and failure to rescue (defined as in‐hospital mortality after a documented postoperative complication) for severe postoperative complications were determined. Results Some 64 349 patients were identified. The overall in‐house mortality rate was 3·9 per cent. The crude in‐hospital mortality rate ranged from 5·3 per cent in very low‐volume hospitals to 2·6 per cent in very high‐volume centres, with a distinct trend between volume categories (P < 0·001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis using hospital volume as random effect, very high‐volume hospitals (53 interventions/year) had a risk‐adjusted odds ratio of 0·58 (95 per cent c.i. 0·47 to 0·73), compared with the baseline in‐house mortality rate in very low‐volume hospitals (6 interventions per year) (P < 0·001). The overall postoperative complication rate was comparable between different volume quintiles, but failure to rescue decreased significantly with increasing caseload (15·6 per cent after pulmonary embolism in the highest volume quintile versus 38 per cent in the lowest quintile; P = 0·010). Conclusion Patients who had rectal cancer surgery in high‐volume hospitals showed better outcomes and reduced failure to rescue rates for severe complications than those treated in low‐volume hospitals.