Geriatric Approaches to Rectal Cancer: Moving Towards a Patient-Tailored Treatment Era

Rectal cancer is a significant global health concern, particularly amongst the elderly population, with rectal cancer accounting for approximately one-third of cancer cases in this population. Older adults often present with advanced disease stages and unique clinical manifestations, such as tumors closer to the anal verge and with greater size. Diagnosis typically involves a series of screening and imaging strategies, culminating in accurate staging through pelvic MRI, endoscopic ultrasound, and CT scan. Management of rectal cancer in older adults emphasizes individualized treatment plans that consider both the cancer stage and the patient’s overall health status, including frailty and comorbidities. A multidisciplinary approach, including a mandatory geriatric assessment, is essential for optimizing outcomes, in order to improve survival and quality of life for elderly patients with rectal cancer

Small bowel emergency surgery: literature's review

Emergency surgery of the small bowel represents a challenge for the surgeon, in the third millennium as well. There is a wide number of pathologies which involve the small bowel. The present review, by analyzing the recent and past literature, resumes the more commons. The aim of the present review is to provide the main indications to face the principal pathologies an emergency surgeon has to face with during his daily activity

Usefulness of Fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green for evaluation of bowel perfusion in the urgency setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:Fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) has been extensively utilized to assess bowel perfusion in oncologic surgery. In the emergency setting, there are many situations in which bowel perfusion assessment is required. Large prospective studies or RCTs evaluating feasibility, safety and utility of ICG in the emergency setting are lacking. The primary aim is to assess the usefulness of ICG for evaluation of bowel perfusion in the emergency setting.Materials and methods:The manuscript was drafted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). A systematic literature search was carried out through Pubmed, Scopus, and the ISI Web of Science. Assessment of included study using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) was calculated. The meta-analysis was carried out in line with recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, and the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate effect sizes.Results:10 093 papers were identified. Eighty-four were reviewed in full-text, and 78 were excluded: 64 were case reports; 10 were reviews without original data; 2 were letters to the editor; and 2 contained unextractable data. Finally, six studies22-27 were available for quality assessment and quantitative synthesis. The probability of reoperation using ICG fluorescence angiography resulted similar to the traditional assessment of bowel perfusion with a RD was -0.04 (95% CI: -0.147 to 0.060). The results were statistically significant P=0.029, although the heterogeneity was not negligible with a 59.9% of the I 2 index. No small study effect or publication bias were found.Conclusions:This first metanalysis on the use of IGC fluorescence for ischemic bowel disease showed that this methodology is a safe and feasible tool in the assessment of bowel perfusion in the emergency setting. This topic should be further investigated in high-quality studies

Biliary sepsis due to recurrent acute calculus cholecystitis ({ACC}) in a high surgical-risk elderly patient: An unexpected complication

Acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC) is increasing in frequency within an ageing population, in which biliary tract infection, including cholecystitis and cholangitis, is the second most common cause of sepsis, with higher morbidity and mortality rates. Patient's critical conditions, such as septic shock or anaesthesiology contraindication, may be reasons to avoid laparoscopic cholecystectomy-the first-line treatment of ACC-preferring gallbladder drainage. It can aid in patient's stabilization with also the benefit of identifying the causative organism to establish a targeted antibiotic therapy, especially in patients at high risk for antimicrobial resistance such as healthcare-associated infection. Nevertheless, a recent randomized clinical trial showed that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can reduce the rate of major complications compared with percutaneous catheter drainage in critically ill patients too. On the other hand, among the possibilities to control biliary sepsis in non-operative management of ACC, according to recent meta-analysis, endoscopic gallbladder drainage showed better clinical success rate, and it is gaining popularity because of the potential advantage of allowing gallstones clearance to reduce recurrences of ACC. However, complications that may arise, although rare, can worsen an already weak clinical condition, as happened to the high surgical-risk elderly patient taken into account in our case report

International Delphi consensus on the management of percutaneous choleystostomy in acute cholecystitis (E-AHPBA, ANS, WSES societies)

Background There has been a progressive increase in the use of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) in acute cholecystitis (AC) over the last decades due to population aging, and the support of guidelines (Tokyo Guidelines (TG), World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Guidelines) as a valid therapeutical option. However, there are many unanswered questions about the management of PCs. An international consensus on indications and PC management using Delphi methodology with contributions from experts from three surgical societies (EAHPBA, ANS, WSES) have been performed. Methods A two-round Delphi consensus, which included 27 questions, was sent to key opinion leaders in AC. Participants were asked to indicate their 'agreement/disagreement' using a 5-point Likert scale. Survey items with less than 70% consensus were excluded from the second round. For inclusion in the final recommendations, each survey item had to have reached a group consensus (>= 70% agreement) by the end of the two survey rounds. Results 54 completed both rounds (82% of invitees). Six questions got > 70% and are included in consensus recommendations: In patients with acute cholecystitis, when there is a clear indication of PC, it is not necessary to wait 48 h to be carried out; Surgery is the first therapeutic option for the TG grade II acute cholecystitis in a patient suitable for surgery; Before PC removal a cholangiography should be done; There is no indication for PC in Tokyo Guidelines (TG) grade I patients; Transhepatic approach is the route of choice for PC; and after PC, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred approach (93.1%). Conclusions Only six statements about PC management after AC got an international consensus. An international guideline about the management of PCs are necessary

The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery

Background Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety.Methods The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres.Discussion Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception

Ergonomics in the operating room and surgical training: a survey on the Italian scenario

IntroductionSurgical-related injuries are frequent, in fact the reported percentage of musculoskeletal disorders in surgeons is between 47% and 87%. These conditions are caused by long periods of standing, incorrect postures, repeated movements, little rest between operations, the lack of integrated operator rooms, the correct number and arrangement of monitors and the use of non-ergonomic instruments. This survey aims to assess the Italian overview both highlighting how prevalent surgical-related injury is in our surgeons and whether there is an operating room ergonomics education program in Italian surgical specialty schools.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was designed through SurveyMonkey© web application. This survey was composed of 3 different sections concerning the general characteristics of the participants, their surgical background and any training performed, and any injuries or ailments related to the surgical activity. The survey was carried out in the period 1th of December 2022 and the 6th of February 2023.ResultsAt the close of our survey, 300 responses were collected. Among the participants, the two most represented specialties were Gynecology and Obstetrics (42.3%) and General Surgery (39.7%) and surgeons were mainly employed in the Northern regions of Italy (54.8%). Analyzing the participants’ background, 61.7% of the respondents had laparoscopic training during their training and only 53.1% had a pelvic trainer during their residency. In accordance with 98.7% of the respondents, during surgery we have the feeling of being in an uncomfortable position that causes discomfort or muscle pain, and regarding the frequency of these discomforts, the majority of our study population experiences these problems monthly (46.2%), while in 29.6% it is experienced weekly, 12.1% annually and finally 12.1% daily. The surgical approach that is most correlated with these disorders is laparoscopy (62.7%) while the one that causes the least discomfort is robotic surgery (1.4%). These discomforts cause 43.9% of our population to take a break or do short exercises to reduce pain during surgery, and the body areas most affected are the back (61.6%), neck (40.6%) and shoulders (37.8%).ConclusionDespite this, our survey allows us to highlight some now-known gaps present in the surgical training program of our schools and the lack of protection toward our surgeons during their long career

Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for recurrent and primary locally advanced rectal cancer

Background Pelvic exenteration is the only radical treatment for locally advanced (ARC) or recurrent (RRC) rectal cancers. The long-term results of the procedure are variably reported in the literature, with recent series suggesting similar survival between ARC and RRC. The study aimed to analyze and compare the long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for ARC and RRC in a tertiary center. Materials and methods This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Comparison of variables was performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate. The Kaplan Meier method was used to analyze the disease-free survival (DFS) and the log-rank test to compare the two groups. Results Since 2002, 46 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for ARC (28, 60.9%) and RRC (18, 39.1%). The groups had comparable characteristics, perioperative results, including postoperative complications, and rate of adjuvant chemotherapy. A R0 resection was obtained in 71.4% and 55.6% (p 0.41) and a T4 stage was diagnosed in 75% and 94.4% (p 0.22) of ARC and RRC patients, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 32.5 and 56.6 months (p 0.01), the 5-year DFS was significantly lower in the RRC group (23.6 vs 46.2%, p 0.006), even after exclusion of R1 cases (30 vs 54.5%, p 0.044). Conclusion The long-term disease free survival of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is significantly worse when the procedure is performed for RRC, regardless of the tumor involvement of the resection margins