BACKGROUND: Cysto-ventricular catheters (CVC) have emerged as promising treatment option for cystic craniopharyngioma and arachnoid cysts, but their effectiveness in treating cysts originating from glioma or brain metastasis (BM) remains limited. This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of CVC in patients with glioma and BM as well as procedure-associated morbidity.
METHODS: This single-center retrospective study included all patients treated with CVC placement for acquired space-occupying cysts deriving from previously treated glioma or BMs between 1/2010 and 12/2021.
RESULTS: A total of 57 patients with a median age of 47 years (IQR 38-63) were identified. Focal neurological deficits were the predominant symptoms in 60% of patients (n = 34), followed by cephalgia in 14% (n = 8), and epileptic seizures in 21.1% (n = 12). Accurate CVC placement was achieved in all but one case requiring revision surgery due to malposition. Three months after CVC implantation, 70% of patients showed symptomatic improvement. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the development of space-occupying cysts later in the course of the disease (OR 1.014; p = 0.04) and a higher reduction of cyst-volume postoperatively (OR 1.055; p = 0.05) were significant predictors of postoperative symptomatic improvement following CVC placement. Local cyst recurrence was observed in three cases during follow-up MRI after an average time of 5 months (range 3-9 months). Further complications included secondary malresorptive hydrocephalus in three cases and meningeosis neoplastica in one patient.
CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic implantation of CVC is an efficient treatment option for patients suffering from symptomatic space-occupying cysts from BMs or glioma, independently from their CNS WHO grade. However, a vigilant approach is crucial regarding potential complications and treatment failures.

Background: Percutaneous fixation of scaphoid fractures need accurate guide pin insertion. The emergence of computer-assisted navigation and robotic surgery may provide a promising solution to this problem. Methods: This study presents the development of an automatic multi-degrees of freedom (DOF) surgical robot with computer-assisted navigation system, focusing on percutaneous scaphoid guide pin insertion. Using this device, along with a 3D fluoroscopy unit, we have conducted an experimental study on 10 cadavers for percutaneous scaphoid guide pin insertion to verify the feasibility and reliability of the system. Results: The mean operative duration was 29.1 (SD 4.3) minutes. The cadavers required no more than two attempts to achieve desired wire placement, with the mean positioning-error being 2.0 (SD 0.3) mm and the mean angle-deviation 3.6 (SD 0.7)°. Throughout the study, a mean of 2.2 full-cycle fluoroscopy attempts was required for each cadaver during surgery, and no preoperative CT scan was needed. Conclusions: The outcomes show that using the automatic surgical robot to perform the percutaneous scaphoid guide pin insertion is feasible and desired results can be achieved.

Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR.
This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR.
5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate).
LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc herniation is one of the leading causes of chronic low back pain. Surgery remains the therapy of choice when conservative approaches fail. Full-endoscopic approaches represent a promising alternative to the well-established microsurgical technique. However, high-grade evidence comparing these techniques is still scarce.
METHODS: Patients presenting with lumbar disc herniation will be included. The intervention group will obtain full-endoscopic disc decompression, whereas the control group will be treated by microsurgical disc decompression. We will apply a comprehensive cohort study design involving a randomized and a prospective non-randomized study arm. Patients who do not consent to be randomized will be assigned to the non-randomized arm. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes involve the visual analog scale (VAS) of pain and the SF-36 health questionnaire. Furthermore, clinical characteristics including duration of hospital stay, operation time, and complications as well as laboratory markers, such as C-reactive protein, white blood cell counts, and interleukin 6 will be determined and compared.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will significantly contribute to the current evidence available in the literature by evaluating the outcome of the full-endoscopic technique against the gold standard for lumbar disc herniation in a clinically relevant study setup. Additionally, the study design allows us to include patients not willing to be randomized in a prospective parallel study arm and to evaluate the impact of randomization on outcomes and include. The results could help to improve the future therapy in patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation.
BACKGROUND: This study was prospectively registered in The German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), a German WHO primary registry, under the registration number: DRKS00025786. Registered on July 7, 2021.