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

Abdominal wall desmoid tumors: A proposal for US-guided resection

Background: Desmoid tumors (DTs) is a benign tumor with high tendency to infiltrative evolution and recurrence. Nowadays, in abdominal localization, the standard approach is surgery with R0 condition. The need to repair post-surgical wide wall defect requires conservative technique to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia and to obtain better quality of life (QoL). Methods: We perform an abdominal wall desmoid resection using ultrasound guide. This technique ensures to spare a wide wall area and to obtain a multilayer reconstruction minimizing postoperative risk. This approach allows good oncological results and better managing abdominal wall post-resection defect. Results: We use US guided surgery to get radical approach and wall tissue spare that allows us a multilayer reconstruction minimizing post-operative complications. No recurrences were observed in one year follow up period. Conclusion: Our experience represents first step to consider ultrasound mediated technique usefull to optimize wall resection surgery and to minimize following complications

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Treatment of Lung Metastases

Introduction: The ideal surgical approach for pulmonary metastasectomy remains controversial. Thoracoscopic surgery may offer advantages in quality of life outcomes, with equivalent oncologic long-term results. This study aimed to demonstrate the validity of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of lung metastases. Methods: In all 224 patients who underwent 300 VATS metastasectomies from January 2000 to December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-nine patients underwent major resection (68 thoracoscopic lobectomies and one pneumonectomy) and 155 patients underwent a wedge resection/segmentectomy. Complete curative pulmonary resections were performed in 219 (97%) cases. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate survival curves. Univariate and subsequent multivariate Cox model regression were performed to identify independent factors of overall survival. Results: One hundred eighty-six patients developed lung metastases from epithelial tumors, 28 from sarcomas, seven from melanomas, and three from germ cell tumors. The final pathological examination revealed no cases of R1 disease. After a mean follow-up of 40 months, 118 patients (53%) had died. According to a multivariate analysis, a better prognosis was not observed for patients with a particular histological type; in addition, disease-free interval time, age, number of metastases, and type of surgery did not have any statistical influence on long-term survival. Conclusions: Thoracoscopic surgery is a safe and efficacious procedure, with a five-year overall survival that is equivalent to open surgery

Clinical outcomes of patients with complicated post-operative course after gastrectomy for cancer: a GIRCG study using the GASTRODATA registry

Gastrectomy for gastric cancer is still performed in Western countries with high morbidity and mortality. Post-operative complications are frequent, and effective diagnosis and treatment of complications is crucial to lower the mortality rates. In 2015, a project was launched by the EGCA with the aim of building an agreement on list and definitions of post-operative complications specific for gastrectomy. In 2018, the platform www.gastrodata.org was launched for collecting cases by utilizing this new complication list. In the present paper, the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer endorsed a collection of complicated cases in the period 2015-2019, with the aim of investigating the clinical pictures, diagnostic modalities, and treatment approaches, as well as outcome measures of patients experiencing almost one post-operative complication. Fifteen centers across Italy provided 386 cases with a total of 538 complications (mean 1.4 complication/patient). The most frequent complications were non-surgical infections (gastrointestinal, pulmonary, and urinary) and anastomotic leaks, accounting for 29.2% and 17.3% of complicated patients, with a median Clavien-Dindo score of II and IIIB, respectively. Overall mortality of this series was 12.4%, while mortality of patients with anastomotic leak was 25.4%. The clinical presentation with systemic septic signs, the timing of diagnosis, and the hospital volume were the most relevant factors influencing outcome

Current practice on the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy in Italy: the Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy ({ADiGe}) survey

Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing and ERAS guidelines suggest the benefit of drain avoidance. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Research Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. A 28-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the respondents. Most of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience, or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the participants remove the drain on postoperative day 4-6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain's role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous