The unwanted third wheel in the Calot's triangle: Incidence and surgical significance of caterpillar hump of right hepatic artery with a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Caterpillar hump of the right hepatic artery is a rare variation increasing the risk of vascular and biliary injuries during hepatobiliary surgery. The aim of this study is to record the cases of the right hepatic artery forming caterpillar hump in a cohort of patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to report a review of the literature systematically conducted. METHODS: We reviewed clinical and surgical video data of 230 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis treated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 2016 and August 2017. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane and Ovid databases until 30th June 2017 was also performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Our institutional data indicated that 1.3% of 230 patients presented caterpillar hump right hepatic artery. The systematic review included 16 studies reporting data from a total of 498 human cadavers and 579 patients submitted to cholecystectomy. The overall proportion of surgical patients with the caterpillar hump right hepatic artery was 6.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Variations of the cystic artery are not just an anatomical dissertation, assuming a very crucial role in surgical strategies to avoid uncontrolled vascular lesions. A meticulous knowledge of the hepatobiliary triangle in association with all elements of 'Culture of Safety in Cholecystectomy' is mandatory for surgeons facing more than two structures within Calot's triangle

Oncologic Effectiveness and Safety of Splenectomy in Total Gastrectomy for Proximal Gastric Carcinoma: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Aim: The role of splenectomy as an essential component of radical surgery for proximal gastric cancer, from an oncological point of view, is still debated, and no consistent recommendations have been proposed. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to provide a more robust answer regarding the oncological effectiveness and safety of splenectomy in total gastrectomy for proximal gastric carcinoma. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was planned and performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Patients with a histological diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma located in the upper third of the stomach who underwent D2 total gastrectomy with or without splenectomy were selected. The primary outcome was to analyze the influence of splenectomy on the overall survival of patients. Additionally, the mean difference in procedure time, length of hospital stay, number of retrieved lymph nodes, as well as the odds ratio of postoperative complications comparing splenectomy to spleen preservation were investigated in a secondary analysis Results: Overall, four studies with a total of 978 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed no difference in overall survival rates between those who underwent spleen preservation compared to the splenectomy-treated group (risk ratio=0.92, 95% confidence interval=0.79 to 1.06, p=0.277). Interestingly, all studies reporting overall morbidity data highlighted statistically significant differences in favor of spleen-preservation group (odds ratio=2.11, 95% confidence interval=1.44 to 3.09, p<0.001). Conclusion: In total, gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer, splenectomy should not be recommended as it increases operative morbidity without improving survival when compared to spleen preservation. Furthermore, our results may help in planning the updated versions of Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines. This meta-analysis, however, points to the urgent need for high-quality, well-designed, large-scale, clinical trials, with short-as well as long-term evaluation comparing splenectomy with spleen-preserving procedures, in a controlled randomized manner to help future research and to establish an evidence-based approach to gastric cancer treatment

Oncologic Effectiveness and Safety of Bursectomy in Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis

<p><i>Purpose/Aim</i>: In the past few decades some researchers have questioned whether bursectomy for gastric cancer is essential from an oncological point of view and no consistent recommendations have been proposed. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to investigate the oncologic effectiveness and safety of bursectomy for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: We planned and performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. <i>Results</i>: Overall, four studies with a total of 1,340 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled hazard ratio for overall survival between the bursectomy versus nonbursectomy groups was [HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.66–1.11, <i>p</i> =.252]. Interestingly, the pooled HR between the two groups in serosa-positive cases subgroup, showed a significant improvement of overall survival rate in favor of bursectomy [HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.73–0.99, <i>p</i> <.05]. <i>Conclusions</i>: Bursectomy represents a surgical procedure that might be able to improve overall survival in serosa positive gastric cancer patients. However, a definitive conclusion could not be made because of the studies’ methodological limitations. This meta-analysis points to the urgent need of high quality, large-scaled, clinical trials with short- as well as long-term evaluation comparing bursectomy with non bursectomy procedures, in a controlled randomized manner, helping future researches and establishing a modern and tailored approach to gastric cancer.</p

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 &gt;= 5 + Timed Up &amp; Go test &lt;20 seconds + MiniCog &gt;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 &gt;= 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) &gt;= 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 &gt;= 7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG &gt;= 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 &lt; .001), fTRST &gt;= 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 &lt; .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

Consensus statement of the Italian society of pediatric allergy and immunology for the pragmatic management of children and adolescents with allergic or immunological diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

International audienceAbstract The COVID-19 pandemic has surprised the entire population. The world has had to face an unprecedented pandemic. Only, Spanish flu had similar disastrous consequences. As a result, drastic measures (lockdown) have been adopted worldwide. Healthcare service has been overwhelmed by the extraordinary influx of patients, often requiring high intensity of care. Mortality has been associated with severe comorbidities, including chronic diseases. Patients with frailty were, therefore, the victim of the SARS-COV-2 infection. Allergy and asthma are the most prevalent chronic disorders in children and adolescents, so they need careful attention and, if necessary, an adaptation of their regular treatment plans. Fortunately, at present, young people are less suffering from COVID-19, both as incidence and severity. However, any age, including infancy, could be affected by the pandemic. Based on this background, the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology has felt it necessary to provide a Consensus Statement. This expert panel consensus document offers a rationale to help guide decision-making in the management of children and adolescents with allergic or immunologic diseases

Consensus statement of the Italian society of pediatric allergy and immunology for the pragmatic management of children and adolescents with allergic or immunological diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has surprised the entire population. The world has had to face an unprecedented pandemic. Only, Spanish flu had similar disastrous consequences. As a result, drastic measures (lockdown) have been adopted worldwide. Healthcare service has been overwhelmed by the extraordinary influx of patients, often requiring high intensity of care. Mortality has been associated with severe comorbidities, including chronic diseases. Patients with frailty were, therefore, the victim of the SARS-COV-2 infection. Allergy and asthma are the most prevalent chronic disorders in children and adolescents, so they need careful attention and, if necessary, an adaptation of their regular treatment plans. Fortunately, at present, young people are less suffering from COVID-19, both as incidence and severity. However, any age, including infancy, could be affected by the pandemic.Based on this background, the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology has felt it necessary to provide a Consensus Statement. This expert panel consensus document offers a rationale to help guide decision-making in the management of children and adolescents with allergic or immunologic diseases

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