Could lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy provide oncological providence for local resectional techniques for colon cancer? A review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endoscopic resectional techniques for colon cancer are undermined by their inability to determine lymph node status. This limits their application to only those lesions at the most minimal risk of lymphatic dissemination whereas their technical capacity could allow intraluminal or even transluminal address of larger lesions. Sentinel node biopsy may theoretically address this breach although the variability of its reported results for this disease is worrisome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were interrogated back to 1999 to identify all publications concerning lymphatic mapping for colon cancer with reference cross-checking for completeness. All reports were examined from the perspective of in vivo technique accuracy selectively in early stage disease (i.e. lesions potentially within the technical capacity of endoscopic resection).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-two studies detailing the experiences of 3390 patients were identified. Considerable variation in patient characteristics as well as in surgical and histological quality assurances were however evident among the studies identified. In addition, considerable contamination of the studies by inclusion of rectal cancer without subgroup separation was frequent. Indeed such is the heterogeneity of the publications to date, formal meta-analysis to pool patient cohorts in order to definitively ascertain technique accuracy in those with T1 and/or T2 cancer is not possible. Although lymphatic mapping in early stage neoplasia alone has rarely been specifically studied, those studies that included examination of false negative rates identified high T3/4 patient proportions and larger tumor size as being important confounders. Under selected circumstances however the technique seems to perform sufficiently reliably to allow it prompt consideration of its use to tailor operative extent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The specific question of whether sentinel node biopsy can augment the oncological propriety for endoscopic resective techniques (including Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery [NOTES]) cannot be definitively answered at present. Study heterogeneity may account for the variability evident in the results from different centers. Enhanced capacity (perhaps to the level necessary to consider selective avoidance of en bloc mesenteric resection) by its confinement to only early stage disease is plausible although not proven. Specific study of the technique in early stage tumors is clearly essential before proffering this approach.</p

A comprehensive overview of radioguided surgery using gamma detection probe technology

The concept of radioguided surgery, which was first developed some 60 years ago, involves the use of a radiation detection probe system for the intraoperative detection of radionuclides. The use of gamma detection probe technology in radioguided surgery has tremendously expanded and has evolved into what is now considered an established discipline within the practice of surgery, revolutionizing the surgical management of many malignancies, including breast cancer, melanoma, and colorectal cancer, as well as the surgical management of parathyroid disease. The impact of radioguided surgery on the surgical management of cancer patients includes providing vital and real-time information to the surgeon regarding the location and extent of disease, as well as regarding the assessment of surgical resection margins. Additionally, it has allowed the surgeon to minimize the surgical invasiveness of many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, while still maintaining maximum benefit to the cancer patient. In the current review, we have attempted to comprehensively evaluate the history, technical aspects, and clinical applications of radioguided surgery using gamma detection probe technology

Xenograft biologic mesh in parietal and general surgery: Technical assessment and review of clinical effectiveness and safety data [Implants biologiques de renfort pariétal en chirurgie viscérale et digestive : évaluation technique et revue des données d'efficacité clinique et de tolérance]

cited By 1International audienceStudy aim To describe the main technical characteristics of biologic prostheses used for parietal reinforcement and to present the state of the art on their risk/benefit ratio. Methods We conducted a technical analysis of manufacturer specifications of the biologic prostheses that are currently available in France accompanied by a literature review by selecting meta-analyses and systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and publications of health technology rating agencies. Results Biological implants for parietal reinforcement are mainly intended for use in a contaminated environment where the use of synthetic prostheses is contra-indicated. We identified 14 systematic reviews and meta-analyses and one randomized controlled trial. Six ongoing clinical trials were identified as well as two clinical trials that had been interrupted. In the current state of knowledge, there are no high-level evidence data on the therapeutic contribution of biologic prostheses that allow prioritization of the various biologic prostheses according to their characteristics or their different manufacturing processes. Conclusion Pending the results of current randomized controlled trials to validate the indications and an eventual specific reimbursement, indications for the use of biologic parietal reinforcement prostheses seems to be limited to rare clinical situations and only after collegial discussion. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SA

Xenograft biologic mesh in parietal and general surgery : technical assessment and review of clinical effectiveness and safety data

Study aim: To describe the main technical characteristics of biologic prostheses used for parietal reinforcement and to present the state of the art on their risk/benefit ratio. Methods: We conducted a technical analysis of manufacturer specifications of the biologic prostheses that are currently available in France accompanied by a literature review by selecting meta-analyses and systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and publications of health technology rating agencies. Results: Biological implants for parietal reinforcement are mainly intended for use in a contaminated environment where the use of synthetic prostheses is contra-indicated. We identified fourteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses and one randomized controlled trial. Six ongoing clinical trials were identified as well as two clinical trials that had been interrupted. In the current state of knowledge, there are no high-level evidence data on the therapeutic contribution of biologic prostheses that allow prioritization of the various biologic prostheses according to their characteristics or their different manufacturing processes. Conclusion: Pending the results of current randomized controlled trials to validate the indications and an eventual specific reimbursement, indications for the use of biologic parietal reinforcement prostheses seems to be limited to rare clinical situations and only after collegial discussion

Comparison of simple aspiration versus standard drainage in the treatment of large primary spontaneous pneumothorax

International audienceChest tube drainage is the standard treatment of a large spontaneous pneumothorax. Aspiration is an alternative technique that is simple and rapid to learn, and the success rate seems identical to chest tube drainage. Its widespread use justifies studies to define its place in the management strategy of spontaneous pneumothorax