Open Access

Rahel M. Strobel, Christian H. W. Schineis, Leyre Lasierra Viguri, Andrea Stroux, Sophie M. Eschlböck, Leonard A. Lobbes, Ioannis Pozios, Claudia Seifarth, Benjamin Weixler, Carsten Kamphues, Katharina Beyer, Johannes C. Lauscher

• Background: Standardization and digitalization are getting more and more essential in surgery. Surgical procedure manager (SPM®) is a freestanding computer serving as a digital supporter in the operating room. SPM® navigates step-by-step through surgery by providing a checklist for each individual step. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective study at the Department for General and Visceral Surgery at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin. Patients who underwent ileostomy reversal without SPM® in the period of January 2017 until December 2017 were compared to patients who were operated with SPM® in the period of June 2018 until July 2020. Explorative analysis and multiple logistic regression were performed. Results: Overall, 214 patients underwent ileostomy reversal: 95 patients without SPM® vs. 119 patients with SPM®. Ileostomy reversal was performed by head of department/attendings in 34.1%, by fellows in 28.5% and by residents in 37.4%; p =Background: Standardization and digitalization are getting more and more essential in surgery. Surgical procedure manager (SPM®) is a freestanding computer serving as a digital supporter in the operating room. SPM® navigates step-by-step through surgery by providing a checklist for each individual step. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective study at the Department for General and Visceral Surgery at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin. Patients who underwent ileostomy reversal without SPM® in the period of January 2017 until December 2017 were compared to patients who were operated with SPM® in the period of June 2018 until July 2020. Explorative analysis and multiple logistic regression were performed. Results: Overall, 214 patients underwent ileostomy reversal: 95 patients without SPM® vs. 119 patients with SPM®. Ileostomy reversal was performed by head of department/attendings in 34.1%, by fellows in 28.5% and by residents in 37.4%; p = 0.91. Postoperative intraabdominal abscess emerged more often in patients without SPM®: ten (10.5%) patients vs. four (3.4%) patients; p = 0.035. Multiple logistic regression showed a risk reduction for intraabdominal abscess {Odds ratio (OR) 0.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05–0.71]; p = 0.014} and for bowel perforation [OR 0.09 (95% CI 0.01–0.93); p = 0.043] in the group with use of SPM® in ileostomy reversal. Conclusions: SPM® may reduce postoperative complications in ileostomy reversal such as intraabdominal abscess and bowel perforation. SPM® may contribute to patient safety.…