Minimally invasive vs. open segmental resection of the splenic flexure for cancer: a nationwide study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CNN)

Background Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes. Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed >= 12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length >= 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate. Results A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray's tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray's tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI - 4.7% to infinity). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference - 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI - 5.0% to infinity). Conclusions Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer (RALAR study): A nationwide retrospective study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network Collaborative Group

Aim: Anastomotic leakage after restorative surgery for rectal cancer shows high morbidity and related mortality. Identification of risk factors could change operative planning, with indications for stoma construction. This retrospective multicentre study aims to assess the anastomotic leak rate, identify the independent risk factors and develop a clinical prediction model to calculate the probability of leakage. Methods: The study used data from 24 Italian referral centres of the Colorectal Cancer Network of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Patients were classified into two groups, AL (anastomotic leak) or NoAL (no anastomotic leak). The effect of patient-, disease-, treatment- and postoperative outcome-related factors on anastomotic leak after univariable and multivariable analysis was measured. Results: A total of 5398 patients were included, 552 in group AL and 4846 in group NoAL. The overall incidence of leaks was 10.2%, with a mean time interval of 6.8 days. The 30-day leak-related mortality was 2.6%. Sex, body mass index, tumour location, type of approach, number of cartridges employed, weight loss, clinical T stage and combined multiorgan resection were identified as independent risk factors. The stoma did not reduce the leak rate but significantly decreased leak severity and reoperation rate. A nomogram with a risk score (RALAR score) was developed to predict anastomotic leak risk at the end of resection. Conclusions: While a defunctioning stoma did not affect the leak risk, it significantly reduced its severity. Surgeons should recognize independent risk factors for leaks at the end of rectal resection and could calculate a risk score to select high-risk patients eligible for protective stoma construction

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer (RALAR study): A nationwide retrospective study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network Collaborative Group

Aim: Anastomotic leakage after restorative surgery for rectal cancer shows high morbidity and related mortality. Identification of risk factors could change operative planning, with indications for stoma construction. This retrospective multicentre study aims to assess the anastomotic leak rate, identify the independent risk factors and develop a clinical prediction model to calculate the probability of leakage. Methods: The study used data from 24 Italian referral centres of the Colorectal Cancer Network of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Patients were classified into two groups, AL (anastomotic leak) or NoAL (no anastomotic leak). The effect of patient-, disease-, treatment- and postoperative outcome-related factors on anastomotic leak after univariable and multivariable analysis was measured. Results: A total of 5398 patients were included, 552 in group AL and 4846 in group NoAL. The overall incidence of leaks was 10.2%, with a mean time interval of 6.8 days. The 30-day leak-related mortality was 2.6%. Sex, body mass index, tumour location, type of approach, number of cartridges employed, weight loss, clinical T stage and combined multiorgan resection were identified as independent risk factors. The stoma did not reduce the leak rate but significantly decreased leak severity and reoperation rate. A nomogram with a risk score (RALAR score) was developed to predict anastomotic leak risk at the end of resection. Conclusions: While a defunctioning stoma did not affect the leak risk, it significantly reduced its severity. Surgeons should recognize independent risk factors for leaks at the end of rectal resection and could calculate a risk score to select high-risk patients eligible for protective stoma construction

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (>= 7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3-6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly