Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy

In recent years, total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (TLPD) has been introduced as a feasible alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) when performed by experienced surgeons in laparoscopic and pancreatic surgery. Its application has been gradually increased, but its safety, reproducibility, and oncological outcomes are still debated due to its technical complexity and prolonged operating time. We performed a systematic analysis of the more relevant aspects of TLPD. In this chapter, we report a general overview of the different experiences present in the literature regarding indications, surgical techniques, postoperative outcomes, benefits and limitations of this approach, oncological results, learning curve, and costs. There is no standardized surgical technique for TLPD. Different techniques exist for both the demolitive stage and the reconstructive stage. We summarized the different aspects of the surgical technique based on the various experiences reported by different authors. Compared to OPD, TLPD provides the advantages of laparoscopy, i.e., reduced blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, and shorter length of hospital stay, without increasing the rate of postoperative complications or compromising oncological outcomes. An appropriate patient selection is crucial at the beginning of the learning curve. With increased experience, more challenging cases may also be approached with this technique, including those requiring major vascular resections or multi-visceral resections

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort

background: In italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. methods: a database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. the primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. the results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. results: a total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). group a versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). a mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. no difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. conclusion: this study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery

Predicting Functional Recovery and Quality of Life in Older Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Real-World Data From the International GOSAFE Study

PURPOSE The GOSAFE study evaluates risk factors for failing to achieve good quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery (FR) in older patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer.METHODS Patients age 70 years and older undergoing major elective colorectal surgery were prospectively enrolled. Frailty assessment was performed and outcomes, including QoL (EQ-5D-3L) recorded (3/6 months postoperatively). Postoperative FR was defined as a combination of Activity of Daily Living >= 5 + Timed Up & Go test <20 seconds + MiniCog >2.RESULTS Prospective complete data were available for 625/646 consecutive patients (96.9%; 435 colon and 190 rectal cancer), 52.6% men, and median age was 79.0 years (IQR, 74.6-82.9 years). Surgery was minimally invasive in 73% of patients (321/435 colon; 135/190 rectum). At 3-6 months, 68.9%-70.3% patients experienced equal/better QoL (72.8%-72.9% colon, 60.1%-63.9% rectal cancer). At logistic regression analysis, preoperative Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool >= 2 (3-month odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.73; P = .034, 6-month OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.75; P = .027) and postoperative complications (3-month OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.42; P = .008, 6-month OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.68; P = .02) are associated with decreased QoL after colectomy. Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) >= 2 is a strong predictor of postoperative QoL decline in the rectal cancer subgroup (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.45 to 9.92; P = .006). FR was reported by 254/323 (78.6%) patients with colon and 94/133 (70.6%) with rectal cancer. Charlson Age Comorbidity Index >= 7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG >= 2 (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.20; P = .007 colon; OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 14.63; P = .009 rectal surgery), severe complications (OR, 17.33; 95% CI, 7.30 to 40.8; P < .001), fTRST >= 2 (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.40 to 5.25; P = .003), and palliative surgery (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.29 to 13.07; P = .017) are risk factors for not achieving FR.CONCLUSION The majority of older patients experience good QoL and stay independent after colorectal cancer surgery. Predictors for failing to achieve these essential outcomes are now defined to guide patients' and families' preoperative counseling

Quality of life in older adults after major cancer surgery: the GOSAFE international study

Abstract Background Accurate quality of life (QoL) data and functional results after cancer surgery are lacking for older patients. The international, multicenter Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) Study compares QoL before and after surgery and identifies predictors of decline in QoL. Methods GOSAFE prospectively collected data before and after major elective cancer surgery on older adults (≥70 years). Frailty assessment was performed and postoperative outcomes recorded (30, 90, and 180 days postoperatively) together with QoL data by means of the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), including 2 components: an index (range = 0-1) generated by 5 domains (mobility, self-care, ability to perform the usual activities, pain or discomfort, anxiety or depression) and a visual analog scale. Results Data from 26 centers were collected (February 2017-March 2019). Complete data were available for 942/1005 consecutive patients (94.0%): 492 male (52.2%), median age 78 years (range = 70-95 years), and primary tumor was colorectal in 67.8%. A total 61.2% of all surgeries were via a minimally invasive approach. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality was 3.7%, 6.3%, and 9%, respectively. At 30 and 180 days, postoperative morbidity was 39.2% and 52.4%, respectively, and Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were 13.5% and 18.7%, respectively. The mean EQ-5D-3L index was similar before vs 3 months but improved at 6 months (0.79 vs 0.82; P < .001). Domains showing improvement were pain and anxiety or depression. A Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool score greater than or equal to 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 2.21, P = .007), palliative surgery (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.01 to 4.52, P = .046), postoperative complications (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.18, P = .007) correlated with worsening QoL. Conclusions GOSAFE shows that older adults’ preoperative QoL is preserved 3 months after cancer surgery, independent of their age. Frailty screening tools, patient-reported outcomes, and goals-of-care discussions can guide decisions to pursue surgery and direct patients’ expectations

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic