Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

none65noThe role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.noneMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo ZuinMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo Zui

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on esophageal cancer surgery in Northern Italy: lessons learned from a multicentric snapshot

Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly burdened healthcare systems worldwide, leading to reorganization of healthcare services and reallocation of resources. The Italian Society for Study of Esophageal Diseases (SISME) conducted a national survey to evaluate changes in esophageal cancer management in a region severely struck by COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based questionnaire (26 items) was sent to 12 SISME units. Short-term outcomes of esophageal resections performed during the lockdown were compared with those achieved in the same period of 2019. Six (50%) centers had significant restrictions in their activity. However, overall number of resections did not decrease compared to 2019, while a higher rate of open esophageal resections was observed (40 vs. 21.7%; P=0.034). Surgery was delayed in 24 (36.9%) patients in 6 (50%) centers, mostly due to shortage of anesthesiologists, and occupation of intensive care unit beds from intubated COVID-19 patients. Indications for neoadjuvant chemo (radio) therapy were extended in 14% of patients. Separate COVID-19 hospital pathways were active in 11 (91.7%) units. COVID-19 screening protocols included nasopharyngeal swab in 91.7%, chest computed tomography scan in 8.3% and selective use of lung ultrasound in 75% of units. Postoperative interstitial pneumonia occurred in 1 (1.5%) patient. Recovery from COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by screening of patients in all units, and follow-up outpatient visits in only 33% of units. This survey shows that clinical strategies differed considerably among the 12 SISME centers. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to support the surgical esophageal community and to standardize clinical practice in case of further pandemics

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred

ERas and COLorectal endoscopic surgery: an Italian society for endoscopic surgery and new technologies (SICE) national report

Background Several reports demonstrated a strong association between the level of adherence to the protocol and improved clinical outcomes after surgery. However, it is difficult to obtain full adherence to the protocol into clinical practice and has still not been identified the threshold beyond which improved functional results can be reached. Methods The ERCOLE (ERas and COLorectal Endoscopic surgery) study was as a cohort, prospective, multi-centre national study evaluating the association between adherence to ERAS items and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was to associate the percentage of ERAS adherence to functional recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study was to validate safety of the ERAS programme evaluating complications' occurrence according to Clavien-Dindo classification and to evaluate the compliance of the Italian surgeons to each ERAS item. Results 1138 patients were included. Adherence to the ERAS protocol was full only in 101 patients (8.9%), > 75% of the ERAS items in 736 (64.7%) and > 50% in 1127 (99%). Adherence to > 75% was associated with a better functional recovery with 90.2 +/- 98.8 vs 95.9 +/- 33.4 h (p = 0.003). At difference, full adherence to the ERAS components 91.7 +/- 22.1 vs 92.2 +/- 31.6 h (p = 0.8) was not associated with better recovery. Conclusions Our results were encouraging to affirm that adherence to the ERAS program up to 75% could be considered satisfactory to get the goal. Our study could be considered a call to simplify the ERAS protocol facilitating its penetrance into clinical practice

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID–19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes

Background This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined. Results Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year ‘Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P < 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P < 0.001). Conclusions Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes

The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy.Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group.Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P < .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P < .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9).Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period