Towards personalized treatment of T2N0 rectal cancer: A systematic review of long-term oncological outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision

Local excision Organ preservation; Rectal cancerEscisión local; Preservación de órganos; Cáncer de rectoExcisió local; Preservació d'òrgans; Càncer de recteBackground and Aim Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the treatment of choice in T2N0 tumors. However, evidence suggest that one-size-fits-all approach is not always beneficial for this group of patients. The aim of this study is to synthesize data on long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by local excision (LE) in T2N0 rectal cancer patients in the perspective of a rectal-preserving strategy. Methods A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases was conducted until October 2021 to identify studies comparing LE after NAT and TME or reporting oncologic outcomes after conservative approach. A pooled analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model in the case of non-significant heterogeneity (P > 0.1), and a random effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) when significant heterogeneity was present (P < 0.1) CRD42022300344. Results Nine studies were included in the analysis. Three of them were comparative studies. The pooled 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year OS, 5-year OS, local and distant recurrence rates were 92.8% (95% CI 81.6–99.5%), 91.3% (95% CI 88.3–94.3%), 96.1% (95% CI 90.5–100%), 72.6% (95% CI 57.5–87.7%), 4% (95% CI 18–63%), and 4.9% (95% CI 2–7.8%), respectively, in subjects treated with NAT followed by LE. No heterogeneity was found for all these analyses, except for the 5-year OS sub-analysis (I2 95.5%, P < 0.001). Complete pathological response (ypT0) rate after NAT and LE ranges from 26.7% to 59%. Conclusion LE following neoadjuvant CRT may provide comparable survival benefit to radical surgery for patients with clinical stage T2N0 in selected patients although the evidence is still limited to provide solid recommendations. A personalized therapeutic approach taking into account tumor and patient-related factors should be considered.Open Access Funding provided by Universita degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

Assessment of blood perfusion quality in laparoscopic colorectal surgery by means of Machine Learning

An innovative algorithm to automatically assess blood perfusion quality of the intestinal sector in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is proposed. Traditionally, the uniformity of the brightness in indocyanine green-based fluorescence consists only in a qualitative, empirical evaluation, which heavily relies on the surgeon's subjective assessment. As such, this leads to assessments that are strongly experience-dependent. To overcome this limitation, the proposed algorithm assesses the level and uniformity of indocyanine green used during laparoscopic surgery. The algorithm adopts a Feed Forward Neural Network receiving as input a feature vector based on the histogram of the green band of the input image. It is used to (i) acquire information related to perfusion during laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and (ii) support the surgeon in assessing objectively the outcome of the procedure. In particular, the algorithm provides an output that classifies the perfusion as adequate or inadequate. The algorithm was validated on videos captured during surgical procedures carried out at the University Hospital Federico II in Naples, Italy. The obtained results show a classification accuracy equal to [Formula: see text], with a repeatability of [Formula: see text]. Finally, the real-time operation of the proposed algorithm was tested by analyzing the video streaming captured directly from an endoscope available in the OR

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 (&gt;200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (&lt;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

Risk of appendiceal neoplasm after interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Non-operative management is often the treatment of choice in cases of complicated appendicitis and routine interval appendectomy is not usually recommended. Actually, recent studies show an alarming number of appendiceal neoplasms following interval appendectomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of appendiceal neoplasms and their histological types after interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in adults. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Studies reporting appendiceal neoplasm rates after interval appendectomy and histopathological characteristics were included. The most recent World Health Organization (WHO) classification of malignant tumours was considered. A pooled prevalence analysis for both prevalence and pathology was performed. Results: A total of eight studies was included: seven retrospective series and one randomized controlled trial. The pooled prevalence of neoplasms after interval appendectomy was 11% (95% CI 7-15; I2 = 37.5%, p = 0.13). Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms occurred in 43% (95% CI 19-68), adenocarcinoma in 29% (95% CI 6-51), appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasm in 21% (95% CI 6-36), globet cell carcinoma in 13% (95% CI -2-28), adenoma or serrated lesions in 20% (95% CI -0-41) of cases. Conclusion: The risk of appendiceal neoplasm in patients treated with interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is 11%; mucinous neoplasm is the most common histopathological type. Further studies should investigate this association in order to clarify the biological pathway and clinical implications

Anastomosis configuration and technique following ileocaecal resection for Crohn's disease: a multicentre study

A limited ileocaecal resection is the most frequently performed procedure for ileocaecal CD and different anastomotic configurations and techniques have been described. This manuscript audited the different anastomotic techniques used in a national study and evaluated their influence on postoperative outcomes following ileocaecal resection for primary CD. This is a retrospective, multicentre, observational study promoted by the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR), including all adults undergoing elective ileocaecal resection for primary CD from June 2018 May 2019. Postoperative morbidity within 30&nbsp;days of surgery was the primary endpoint. Postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS) and anastomotic leak rate were the secondary outcomes. 427 patients were included. The side to side anastomosis was the chosen configuration in 380 patients (89%). The stapled anastomotic (n = 286; 67%), techniques were preferred to hand-sewn (n = 141; 33%). Postoperative morbidity was 20.3% and anastomotic leak 3.7%. Anastomotic leak was independent of the type of anastomosis performed, while was associated with an ASA grade ≥ 3, presence of perianal disease and ileocolonic localization of disease. Four predictors of LOS were identified after multivariate analysis. The laparoscopic approach was the only associated with a reduced LOS (p = 0.017), while age, ASA grade ≥ 3 or administration of preoperative TPN were associated with increased LOS. The side to side was the most commonly used anastomotic configuration for ileocolic reconstruction following primary CD resection. There was no difference in postoperative morbidity according to anastomotic technique and configuration. Anastomotic leak was associated with ASA grade ≥ 3, a penetrating phenotype of disease and ileo-colonic distribution of CD

National variations in perioperative assessment and surgical management of Crohn's disease: a multicentre study

Aim: Crohn's disease (CD) requires a multidisciplinary approach and surgery should be undertaken by dedicated colorectal surgeons with audited outcomes. We present a national, multicentre study, with the aim to collect benchmark data on key performance indicators in CD surgery, to highlight areas where standards of CD surgery excel and to facilitate targeted quality improvement where indicated. Methods: All patients undergoing ileocaecal or redo ileocolic resection in the participating centres for primary and recurrent CD from June 2018 to May 2019 were included. The main objective was to collect national data on hospital volume and practice variations. Postoperative morbidity was the primary outcome. Laparoscopic surgery and stoma rate were the secondary outcomes. Results: In all, 715 patients were included: 457 primary CD and 258 recurrent CD with a postoperative morbidity of 21.6% and 34.7%, respectively. Laparoscopy was used in 83.8% of primary CD compared to 31% of recurrent CD. Twenty-five hospitals participated and the total number of patients per hospital ranged from 2 to 169. Hospitals performing more than 10 primary CD procedures per year showed a higher adoption of laparoscopy and bowel sparing surgery. Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity in the number of CD surgeries performed per year nationally in Italy. Our data suggest that high-volume hospitals perform more complex procedures, with a higher adoption of bowel sparing surgery. The rate of laparoscopy in high-volume hospitals is higher for primary CD but not for recurrent CD compared with low-volume hospitals

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 &gt;6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P &lt; 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

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

background current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. this study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. methods a prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. the primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. all the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). results compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). conclusions MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p &lt; 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide