137 research outputs found
Spontaneous intraperitoneal hemorrhage as the initial presentation of a gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a case report
Ostomy closure rate during COVID-19 pandemic. An Italian multicentre observational study
During the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, most of the surgical procedures were performed for emergencies or oncologic reasons to the detriment of the remaining elective procedures for benign conditions. Ileostomy or colostomy creation are sequelae of oncologic or emergency colorectal surgery, but their closure does not fall within the definition of oncologic or emergency surgery. The aim of this retrospective multicentre observational study is to report the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the ostomy closure rate in Italy. Data regarding ileostomy and colostomy creation and closure from 24 Italian centres, during the study period (March 2020–February 2021) and during the control period (March 2019–February 2020) were collected. Three hospitals (12.5%) were COVID free. The number of colostomies and ileostomies created and closed in the same period was lower (-18.8% and-30%, respectively) in the study period in comparison to the control period (p = 0.1915 and p = 0.0001, respectively), such as the ostomies closed in the analysed periods but created before (colostomy-36.2% and ileostomy-7.4%, p = 0.2211 and p = 0.1319, respectively). Overall, a 19.5% reduction in ostomies closed occurred in the study period. Based on the present study, a reduction in ostomy closure rate occurred in Italy between March 2020 and February 2021. During the pandemic, the need to change the clinical practice probably prolonged deterioration of quality of life in patients with ostomies, increasing number of stomas that will never be closed, and related management costs, even if these issues have not been investigated in this study
Three-row versus two-row circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts
Background: Since most anastomoses after left-sided colorectal resections are performed with a circular stapler, any technological change in stapling devices may influence the incidence of anastomotic adverse events. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of a three-row circular stapler on anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resections. Materials and methods: A circular stapled anastomosis was performed in 4255 (50.9%) out of 8359 patients enrolled in two prospective multicenter studies in Italy, and, after exclusion criteria to reduce heterogeneity, 2799 (65.8%) cases were retrospectively analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates relative to patient characteristics, to surgery and to perioperative management. Two well-balanced groups of 425 patients each were obtained: group (A) – true population of interest, anastomosis performed with a three-row circular stapler; group (B) – control population, anastomosis performed with a two-row circular stapler. The target of inferences was the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT). The primary endpoints were overall and major anastomotic leakage and overall anastomotic bleeding; the secondary endpoints were overall and major morbidity and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses for the outcomes, including the 20 covariates selected for matching, were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of overall anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 6.1%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15–0.73; P = 0.006), major anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 5.2%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17–0.87; P = 0.022), and major morbidity (3.5 vs. 6.6% events; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24–0.91; P = 0.026). Conclusion: The use of three-row circular staplers independently reduced the risk of anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resection. Twenty-five patients were required to avoid one leakage
Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove tecnologie) network prospective study on the approach to right colon lymphadenectomy in Italy: is there a standard?—CoDIG 2 (ColonDx Italian Group)
Background: Colon cancer is a disease with a worldwide spread. Surgery is the best option for the treatment of advanced colon cancer, but some aspects are still debated, such as the extent of lymphadenectomy. In Japanese guidelines, the gold standard was D3 dissection to remove the central lymph nodes (203, 213, and 223), but in 2009, Hoenberger et al. introduced the concept of complete mesocolic excision, in which surgical dissection follows the embryological planes to remove the mesentery entirely to prevent leakage of cancer cells and collect more lymph nodes. Our study describes how lymphadenectomy is currently performed in major Italian centers with an unclear indication on the type of lymphadenectomy that should be performed during right hemicolectomy (RH). Methods: CoDIG 2 is an observational multicenter national study that involves 76 Italian general surgery wards highly specialized in colorectal surgery. Each center was asked not to modify their usual surgical and clinical practices. The aim of the study was to assess the preference of Italian surgeons on the type of lymphadenectomy to perform during RH and the rise of any new trends or modifications in habits compared to the findings of the CoDIG 1 study conducted 4 years ago. Results: A total of 788 patients were enrolled. The most commonly used surgical technique was laparoscopic (82.1%) with intracorporeal (73.4%), side-to-side (98.7%), or isoperistaltic (96.0%) anastomosis. The lymph nodes at the origin of the vessels were harvested in an inferior number of cases (203, 213, and 223: 42.4%, 31.1%, and 20.3%, respectively). A comparison between CoDIG 1 and CoDIG 2 showed a stable trend in surgical techniques and complications, with an increase in the robotic approach (7.7% vs. 12.3%). Conclusions: This analysis shows how lymphadenectomy is performed in Italy to achieve oncological outcomes in RH, although the technique to achieve a higher lymph node count has not yet been standardized. Trial registration (ClinicalTrials.gov) ID: NCT05943951
Appendectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a multicenter ambispective cohort study by the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (the CRAC study)
Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis is that a significant reduction in the number of emergent appendectomies was observed during the pandemic, restricted to complex cases. The study aimed to analyse emergent surgical appendectomies during pandemic on a national basis and compare it to the same period of the previous year. This is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing emergent appendectomy in March-April 2019 vs March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs open) and the complication rates. One thousand five hundred forty one patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the inclusion criteria: 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.2%) in 2019. According to AAST, patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 30.3% vs 39.9% in 2020 (p = 0.001). We observed an increase in the number of post-operative complications in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), the increase of a unit in the AAST score (+ 26%), surgery performed > 24 h after admission (+ 58%), open surgery (+ 112%) and conversion to open surgery (+ 166%). In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. During the first pandemic wave, patients undergoing surgery were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and experienced a higher number of complications. Trial registration number and date: Research Registry ID 5789, May 7th, 202
The impact of synchronous liver resection on the risk of anastomotic leakage following elective colorectal resection. A propensity score match analysis on behalf of the iCral study group
Introduction: how best to manage patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis is still controversial, with specific concerns of increased risk of postoperative complications following combined resection. We aimed at analyzing the influence of combined liver resection on the risk of anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal resection. Methods: we reviewed the iCral prospectively maintained database to compare the relative risk of AL of patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer to that of patients receiving simultaneous liver and colorectal resection for cancer with isolated hepatic metastases. The incidence of AL was the primary outcome of the analysis. Perioperative details and postoperative complications were also appraised. Results: out of a total of 996 patients who underwent colorectal resection for cancer, 206 receiving isolated colorectal resection were compared with a matched group of 53 patients undergoing simultaneous liver and colorectal resection. Combined surgery had greater operative time and resulted in longer postoperative hospitalization compared to colorectal resection alone. The proportion of overall morbidity following combined resection was significantly higher than after isolated colorectal resection (56.6% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.021). Overall, the two groups of patients did not differ neither on the rate of major postoperative complications, nor in terms of AL (9.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.381). At specific multivariate analysis, the duration of surgery was the only risk factor independently associated with the likelihood of AL. Conclusions: combining hepatic with colorectal resection for the treatment of synchronous liver metastasis from colorectal cancer does not increase significantly the incidence of AL
Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy
IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical
attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced
colorectal cancers at diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced
oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all
17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December
31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period),
in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was
30 days from surgery.
EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery,
palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer
at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as
cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding,
lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery,
and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes
was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster
variable.
RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years)
underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142
(56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was
significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR],
1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic
lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients
undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for
these patients
Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30Â years
Open vs robot-assisted laparoscopic gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma: a case-control study.
BACKGROUND:
A population-based case-control study was conducted in order to investigate the advantages of robot-assisted gastric resection (RGR) for gastric cancer as opposed to traditional open gastrectomy (OG).
METHODS:
Data were collected in two prospectively maintained databases on patients who underwent a D2 gastrectomy with curative intent for primary gastric adenocarcinoma. All (n = 29) the first consecutive gastric cancer patients submitted to RGR from a referral centre for minimally invasive surgery were matched to control cancers (n = 120) extrapolated from a high volume centre database including patients submitted to OG.
RESULTS:
Robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures implied increased operative time (290 vs 222 min, p = 0.004), decreased blood loss (197.6 vs 386.1 mL, p = 0.0001) and shorter hospital stay (9.6 vs 13.4 days, p < 0.0009). There was no difference in the mean number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups (28.0 vs 31.7, p = 0.023). The total morbidity rate, including major complications such as anastomotic and duodenal suture failure, was comparable between groups (41.4% vs 42.5%; in the RGR and OG, respectively, p = 0.764). Preliminary data on overall survival did not show prognostic differences between the two groups (p = 0.615).
CONCLUSIONS:
Robot-assisted surgery fulfils oncologic criteria for D2 dissection and has an oncologic outcome comparable with that of OG. RGR resulted in shorter hospital stays, the loss of less blood and morbidity comparable with that of OG. Randomized clinical trials and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate whether RGR achieves long-term survival rates equivalent to that of open and laparoscopic surgery
- …