Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare the accurate colonic lesion localization ratio between CT and colonoscopy in comparison with surgery. All consecutive patients from 1st January to 31st December 2019 with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of dysplastic adenoma or adenocarcinoma with planned elective, curative colonic resection who underwent both colonoscopy and CT scans were included. Each patient underwent conventional colonoscopy and CT to stage the tumour, and the localization results of each procedure were registered. CT and colonoscopic localization were compared with surgical localization, adopted as the reference. Our analysis included 745 patients from 23 centres. After comparing the accuracy of colonoscopy and CT (for visible lesions) in localizing colonic lesions, no significant differences were found between the two preoperative tools (510/661 vs 499/661 correctly localized lesions, p = 0.518). Furthermore, after analysing only the patients who underwent complete colonoscopy and had a visible lesion on CT, no significant difference was observed between conventional colonoscopy and CT (331/427 vs 340/427, p = 0.505). Considering the intraoperative localization results as a reference, a comparison between colonoscopy and CT showed that colonoscopy significantly failed to correctly locate the lesions localized in the descending colon (17/32 vs 26/32, p = 0.031). We did not identify an advantage in using CT to localize colonic tumours. In this setting, colonoscopy should be considered the reference to properly localize lesions; however, to better identify lesions in the descending colon, CT could be considered a valuable tool to improve the accuracy of lesion localization

Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare the accurate colonic lesion localization ratio between CT and colonoscopy in comparison with surgery. All consecutive patients from 1st January to 31st December 2019 with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of dysplastic adenoma or adenocarcinoma with planned elective, curative colonic resection who underwent both colonoscopy and CT scans were included. Each patient underwent conventional colonoscopy and CT to stage the tumour, and the localization results of each procedure were registered. CT and colonoscopic localization were compared with surgical localization, adopted as the reference. Our analysis included 745 patients from 23 centres. After comparing the accuracy of colonoscopy and CT (for visible lesions) in localizing colonic lesions, no significant differences were found between the two preoperative tools (510/661 vs 499/661 correctly localized lesions, p = 0.518). Furthermore, after analysing only the patients who underwent complete colonoscopy and had a visible lesion on CT, no significant difference was observed between conventional colonoscopy and CT (331/427 vs 340/427, p = 0.505). Considering the intraoperative localization results as a reference, a comparison between colonoscopy and CT showed that colonoscopy significantly failed to correctly locate the lesions localized in the descending colon (17/32 vs 26/32, p = 0.031). We did not identify an advantage in using CT to localize colonic tumours. In this setting, colonoscopy should be considered the reference to properly localize lesions; however, to better identify lesions in the descending colon, CT could be considered a valuable tool to improve the accuracy of lesion localization

Endoscopic sinusectomy: ‘a rose by any other name’. A systematic review of different endoscopic procedures to treat pilonidal disease

Aim Pilonidal sinus or Pilonidal Disease (PD) is a relatively common, benign but challenging condition. Although commonly encountered in practice, its ideal treatment is controversial. One of the most validated treatments is video-assisted surgery. In this context, very similar endoscopic techniques have been published under different names. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the differences among these proposed techniques and their outcomes. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed during all stages of this systematic review. A systematic search of the English literature was performed on multiple databases from 1 January 2014 to 3 April 2022. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measures were the adherence to the IDEAL reporting guidelines, the Blencowe framework and the core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques, the qualitative assessment using appropriate tools, the procedural variations and outcomes of each technique. Results A total of 38 articles were included reporting a very similar technique under eight different acronyms. The number of patients varied from 9 to 250. Mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 60 months. There was only one published study of IDEAL 3. The majority (58%) were IDEAL 2a studies. Reporting of domains in the IDEAL reporting guidelines and Blencowe framework was poor, with most studies not reporting the component steps of procedures or efforts to standardize them. Half of COS domains were markedly underreported. The quality of the evidence was categorized as having a risk of bias from moderate to critical level in all nine comparative non-randomized series. Postoperative complications occurred in 0%-6% of cases, including surgical site infection, poor or failed wound healing bleeding, granuloma, haematoma, and pain requiring intervention. The recurrence rate varied from 0% to 22%. Conclusion The study demonstrates that reporting on technical aspects of interventions for PD is poor, thus warranting a better-quality control of surgical techniques. It is advisable to group all endoscopic procedures under the umbrella term of 'endoscopic sinusectomy', thus embracing the two main principles of this technique, that is, video assistance and PD ablation

Efficacy of Mesoglycan in Pain Control after Excisional Hemorrhoidectomy: A Pilot Comparative Prospective Multicenter Study

Introduction. Various pain management strategies for patients undergoing open excisional hemorrhoidectomy have been proposed, yet postoperative pain remains a frequent complaint. Objective. To determine whether mesoglycan (30 mg two vials i.m. once/day for the first 5 days postoperative, followed by 50 mg 1 oral tablet twice/day for 30 days) would reduce the edema of the mucocutaneous bridges and thus improve postoperative pain symptoms. Patients and Methods. For this prospective observational multicenter study, 101 patients undergoing excisional diathermy hemorrhoidectomy for III-IV degree hemorrhoidal disease were enrolled at 5 colorectal referral centers. Patients were assigned to receive either mesoglycan (study group SG) or a recommended oral dose of ketorolac tromethamine of 10 mg every 4–6 hours, not exceeding 40 mg per day and not exceeding 5 postoperative days according to the indications for short-term management of moderate/severe acute postoperative pain, plus stool softeners (control group CG). Results. Postoperative thrombosis (SG 1/48 versus CG 5/45) (p<0.001) and pain after rectal examination (p<0.001) were significantly reduced at 7–10 days after surgery in the mesoglycan-treated group, permitting a faster return to work (p<0.001); however, in the same group, the incidence of postoperative bleeding, considered relevant when needing a readmission or an unexpected outpatient visit, was higher, possibly owing to the drug’s antithrombotic properties. Conclusions. The administration of mesoglycan after an open diathermy excisional hemorrhoidectomy can reduce postoperative thrombosis and pain at 7–10 days after surgery, permitting a faster return to normal activities

Sclerotherapy with 3% polidocanol foam to treat second-degree haemorrhoidal disease. Three-year follow-up of a multicentre, single arm, IDEAL phase 2b trial

Background Sclerotherapy with 3% polidocanol foam is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of symptomatic I-II or III degree haemorrhoidal disease (HD). However, there are no studies that have reported a follow-up of more than 1 year. The purpose of this study was to analyse the long-term outcomes of sclerotherapy with 3% polidocanol foam in the treatment of II-degree HD. Methods This was an open label, single-arm, phase 2b trial conducted in 10 tertiary referral centres for HD. A total of 183 patients with II-degree HD, aged between 18 and 75 years with symptomatic HD according to the Goligher classification and unresponsive to medical treatment, were included in the study and underwent sclerotherapy with 3% polidocanol foam. The efficacy was evaluated in terms of bleeding score, haemorrhoidal disease symptom score (HDSS) and short health scale for HD (SHS-HD) score. Successful treatment was defined as the complete absence of bleeding episodes after 7 days (T1) according to the bleeding score. Results The overall success rate ranged from 95.6% (175/183) at 1 year to 90.2% (165/183) after the final 3 year follow-up. The recurrence rate, based on the primary outcome, ranged from 12% (15/125) to 28% (35/125). The greatest increase in recurrence (15) was recorded between 12 and 18 months of follow-up, then another five between 18 and 24 months. Both the HDSS and the SHS score remained statistically significant (p &lt; 0.001) from a median preoperative value of 11 (10-13) and 18 (15-20) to 0 (0-2) and 4 (0-4), respectively. Symptom-free (HDSS = 0) patients, excluding patients converted to surgery, increased from 55.5% (101/182) at 1 year to 65.1% at 3 years (110/169). There were no intraoperative complications in redo-sclerotherapy nor additional adverse events (AEs) compared to the first 12 months. Conclusions Sclerotherapy with 3% polidocanol foam is gradually establishing itself in the treatment of bleeding HD due to its repeatability, safety, convenience in terms of direct and indirect costs with the absence of discomfort for the patient as well as AEs rather than an excellent overall success rate

E-consensus on telemedicine in colorectal surgery: a RAND/UCLA-modified study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is revolutionizing healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to reach consensus among experts on the possible applications of telemedicine in colorectal surgery. A group of 48 clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) was developed by a clinical guidance group based on coalescence of evidence and expert opinion. The Telemedicine in Colorectal Surgery Italian Working Group included 54 colorectal surgeons affiliated to the Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery (SICCR) who were involved in the evaluation of the appropriateness of each CPR, based on published RAND/UCLA methodology, in two rounds. Stakeholders' median age was 44.5 (IQR 36-60) years, and 44 (81%) were males. Agreement was obtained on the applicability of telemonitoring and telemedicine for multidisciplinary pre-operative evaluation. The panel voted against the use of telemedicine for a first consultation. 15/48 statements deemed uncertain on round 1 and were re-elaborated and assessed by 51/54 (94%) panelists on round 2. Consensus was achieved in all but one statement concerning the cost of a teleconsultation. There was strong agreement on the usefulness of teleconsultation during follow-up of patients with diverticular disease after an in-person visit. This e-consensus provides the boundaries of telemedicine in colorectal surgery in Italy. Standardization of infrastructures and costs remains to be better elucidated

Surgeons' practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey

The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results

Deadlock of proctologic practice in Italy during COVID-19 pandemic: a national report from ProctoLock2020

Proctology is one of the surgical specialties that suffered the most during COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from a cross-sectional worldwide web survey, we aimed to snapshot the current status of proctologic practice in Italy with differences between three macro areas (North, Centre, South). Specialists affiliated to renowned scientific societies with an interest in coloproctology were invited to join a 27-item survey. Predictive power of respondents' and hospitals' demographics on the change of status of surgical activities was calculated. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04392245). Of 299 respondents from Italy, 94 (40%) practiced in the North, 60 (25%) in the Centrer and 82 (35%) in the South and Islands. The majority were men (79%), at consultant level (70%), with a mean age of 46.5 years, practicing in academic hospitals (39%), where a dedicated proctologist was readily available (68%). Southern respondents were more at risk of infection compared to those from the Center (OR, 3.30; 95%CI 1.46; 7.47, P = 0.004), as were males (OR, 2.64; 95%CI 1.09; 6.37, P = 0.031) and those who routinely tested patients prior to surgery (OR, 3.02; 95%CI 1.39; 6.53, P = 0.005). The likelihood of ongoing surgical practice was higher in the South (OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.75; 2.46, P = 0.304) and in centers that were not fully dedicated to COVID-19 care (OR 4.00, 95%CI 1.88; 8.50, P &lt; 0.001). The results of this survey highlight important factors contributing to the deadlock of proctologic practice in Italy and may inform the development of future management strategies

Prospective, randomised, multicentre, open-label trial, designed to evaluate the best timing of closure of the temporary ileostomy (early versus late) in patients who underwent rectal cancer resection and with indication for adjuvant chemotherapy: the STOMAD (STOMa closure before or after ADjuvant therapy) randomised controlled trial

Introduction Temporary ileostomy is a valuable aid in reducing the severity of complications related to rectal cancer surgery. However, it is still unclear what is the best timing of its closure in relation to the feasibility of an adjuvant treatment, especially considering patient-reported outcomes and health system costs. The aim of the study is to compare the results of an early versus late closure strategy in patients with indication to adjuvant chemotherapy after resection for rectal cancer.Methods and analysis This is a prospective multicentre randomised trial, sponsored by Rete Oncologica Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta (Oncology Network of Piedmont and Aosta Valley-Italy). Patients undergone to rectal cancer surgery with temporary ileostomy, aged &gt;18 years, without evidence of anastomotic leak and with indication to adjuvant chemotherapy will be enrolled in 28 Network centres. An early closure strategy (between 30 and 40 days from rectal surgery) will be compared with a late one (after the end of adjuvant therapy). Primary endpoint will be the compliance to adjuvant chemotherapy with and without ileostomy. Complications associated with stoma closure as well as quality of life, costs and oncological outcomes will be assessed as secondary endpoints.Ethics and dissemination The trial will engage the Network professional teams in a common effort to improve the treatment of rectal cancer by ensuring the best results in relation to the most correct use of resources. It will take into consideration both the patients’ point of view (patient-reported outcome) and the health system perspective (costs analysis). The study has been approved by the Ethical Review Board of Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital in Turin (Italy). The results of the study will be disseminated by the Network website, medical conferences and peer-reviewed scientific journals.Trial registration number NCT04372992

Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

: The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare the accurate colonic lesion localization ratio between CT and colonoscopy in comparison with surgery. All consecutive patients from 1st January to 31st December 2019 with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of dysplastic adenoma or adenocarcinoma with planned elective, curative colonic resection who underwent both colonoscopy and CT scans were included. Each patient underwent conventional colonoscopy and CT to stage the tumour, and the localization results of each procedure were registered. CT and colonoscopic localization were compared with surgical localization, adopted as the reference. Our analysis included 745 patients from 23 centres. After comparing the accuracy of colonoscopy and CT (for visible lesions) in localizing colonic lesions, no significant differences were found between the two preoperative tools (510/661 vs 499/661 correctly localized lesions, p = 0.518). Furthermore, after analysing only the patients who underwent complete colonoscopy and had a visible lesion on CT, no significant difference was observed between conventional colonoscopy and CT (331/427 vs 340/427, p = 0.505). Considering the intraoperative localization results as a reference, a comparison between colonoscopy and CT showed that colonoscopy significantly failed to correctly locate the lesions localized in the descending colon (17/32 vs 26/32, p = 0.031). We did not identify an advantage in using CT to localize colonic tumours. In this setting, colonoscopy should be considered the reference to properly localize lesions; however, to better identify lesions in the descending colon, CT could be considered a valuable tool to improve the accuracy of lesion localization