Laparoscopic vs. open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Are these approaches still comparable? A systematic review and metaanalysis

Background To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years. Methods A systematic literature search of the following databases was conducted: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus. Only articles published in English from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 (i.e. the last 10 years), which met inclusion criteria were considered. The review only included articles which compared Laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for rectal cancer and reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. The analyses followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement checklist. Only prospective randomized studies were considered. The body of evidence emerging from this study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Outcome measures (mean and median values, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges) were extracted for each surgical treatment. Pooled estimates of the mean differences were calculated using random effects models to consider potential inter-study heterogeneity and to adopt a more conservative approach. The pooled effect was considered significant if p <0.05. Results Five clinical trials were found eligible for the analyses. A positive involvement of CRM was found in 49 LRRs (8.5%) out of 574 patients and in 30 ORRs out of 557 patients (5.4%) RR was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.99–2.41; p = 0.05) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Incorrect mesorectal excision was observed in 56 out of 507 (11%) patients who underwent LRR and in 41 (8.4%) out of 484 patients who underwent ORR; RR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89–1.91; p = 0.18) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Regarding other pathologic outcomes, no significant difference between LRR and ORR was observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested or concerning the distance to the distal margin. As expected, a significant difference was found in the operating time for ORR with a mean difference of 41.99 (95% CI, 24.18, 59.81; p <0.00001; heterogeneity: I2 = 25%). However, no difference was found for blood loss. Additionally, no significant differences were found in postoperative outcomes such as postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high. Conclusion Despite the spread of laparoscopy with dedicated surgeons and the development of even more precise surgical tools and technologies, the pathological results of laparoscopic surgery are still comparable to those of open ones. Additionally, concerning the pathological data (and particularly CRM), open surgery guarantees better results as compared to laparoscopic surgery. These results must be a starting point for future evaluations which consider the association between ‘‘successful resection” and long-term oncologic outcomes. The introduction of other minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery, such as robotic resection or transanal TME (taTME), has revealed new scenarios and made open and even laparoscopic surgery obsolete

Systematic review of irreversible electroporation role in management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Background: Ablative techniques provide in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) symptomatic relief, survival benefit and potential downsizing. Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) represents potentially an ideal solution as no thermal tissue damage occurs. The purpose of this review is to present an overview on safety, feasibility, oncological results, survival and quality of life improvement obtained by IRE. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, regarding the use of IRE on PC in humans for studies published in English up to March 2019. Results: 15 original studies embodying 691 patients with unresectable LAPC who underwent IRE were included. As emerged, IRE works better on tumour sizes between 3–4 cm. Oncological results are promising: median OS from diagnosis or treatment up to 27 months. Two groups investigated borderline resectable tumours treated with IRE before resection with margin attenuation, whereas IRE has proved to be effective in pain control. Conclusions: Electroporation is bringing new hopes in LAPC management. The first aim of IRE is to offer a palliative treatment. Further efforts are needed for patient selection, as well as the use of IRE for ‘margin accentuation’ during surgical resection. Even if promising, IRE needs to be validated in large, randomized, prospective series

Robotic Major Hepatectomy in Elderly Patient

Background: the role of minimally invasive liver surgery has been progressively developed, with the practice increasing in safety and feasibility also with respect to major liver resections. The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of major liver resection in elderly patients. Methods: data from a multicentric retrospective database including 1070 consecutive robotic liver resections in nine European hospital centers were analyzed. Among these, 131 were major liver resections. Patients were also divided in two groups (<65 years old and ≥65 years old) and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Results: a total of 131 patients were included in the study. Operative time was 332 ± 125 min. Postoperative overall complications occurred in 27.1% of patients. Severe complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ 3) were 9.9%. Hospital stay was 6.6 ± 5.3 days. Patients were divided into two groups based on their age: 75 patients < 65 years old and 56 patients ≥ 65 years old. Prolonged pain, lung infection, intensive care stay, and 90-day readmission were worse in the elderly group. The two groups were matched for ASA and Charlson comorbidity score and, after statistical adjustment, postoperative data were similar between two groups. Conclusions: robotic major liver resection in elderly patients was associated with satisfying short-term outcomes

Spectroscopy of 193,195,197Po

Excited states built on the 13/21 isomers of the odd-mass 193,195,197Po isotopes have been observed via in-beam g-ray spectroscopy. The a radioactivity of these isotopes has been used to tag g -ray transitions following the AEr1164 MeV 32S reactions, where A5164, 166, 167, 168, and 170. Prompt g radiation was measured by ten Compton-suppressed Ge detectors at the target position and the Fragment Mass Analyzer was used to select evaporation residues. The results are compared with the first excited states of the heavier odd-mass polonium isotopes and of the even-mass cores

2020 WSES guidelines for the detection and management of bile duct injury during cholecystectomy.

Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dangerous complication of cholecystectomy, with significant postoperative sequelae for the patient in terms of morbidity, mortality, and long-term quality of life. BDIs have an estimated incidence of 0.4-1.5%, but considering the number of cholecystectomies performed worldwide, mostly by laparoscopy, surgeons must be prepared to manage this surgical challenge. Most BDIs are recognized either during the procedure or in the immediate postoperative period. However, some BDIs may be discovered later during the postoperative period, and this may translate to delayed or inappropriate treatments. Providing a specific diagnosis and a precise description of the BDI will expedite the decision-making process and increase the chance of treatment success. Subsequently, the choice and timing of the appropriate reconstructive strategy have a critical role in long-term prognosis. Currently, a wide spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions with different degrees of invasiveness is indicated for BDI management. These World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines have been produced following an exhaustive review of the current literature and an international expert panel discussion with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate and standardize the detection and management of BDIs during cholecystectomy. In particular, the 2020 WSES guidelines cover the following key aspects: (1) strategies to minimize the risk of BDI during cholecystectomy; (2) BDI rates in general surgery units and review of surgical practice; (3) how to classify, stage, and report BDI once detected; (4) how to manage an intraoperatively detected BDI; (5) indications for antibiotic treatment; (6) indications for clinical, biochemical, and imaging investigations for suspected BDI; and (7) how to manage a postoperatively detected BDI