Retrospective multicenter study of post-operative stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis

Anastomotic stenosis after colorectal surgery is usually considered low-rate complication and often is under-reported in most studies. Few data are available on management strategies. The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis, performed either in elective or emergent setting, for benign or malignant disease, and to evaluate treatment profiles. This retrospective study was a survey conducted in a large Italian North-Eastern area including three regions (Triveneto), over a 12-month period (January-December 2015). Patients' characteristics and surgical technique details were recorded, along with data on the prevalence of stenosis and its treatment. Patients with mid or low rectal resection and/or neoadjuvant chemo-radio therapy and/or diverting stoma were excluded. The study was promoted by the Italian Association of Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) and the Society of Surgeons of the Triveneto Region. Twenty-eight surgical units were enrolled in the survey, accounting for over 1400 patients studied. Fifty percent of the units performed laparoscopically >\u200970% of the colorectal resections and 7.5% of the procedures were emergent. Less than 60% of the units planned regular endoscopic follow-up after colorectal resection. Anastomotic stricture was recorded in 2% of the patients; 88% of the stenoses were diagnosed within 6 months from surgery. Only one anastomotic stricture required re-do surgery. The CANSAS study confirms that colorectal anastomotic stenosis is low-rate-but still present-complication. Treatment strategies vary according to surgeons' and endoscopists' preferences. Commonly endoscopic dilatation is preferred, but re-do surgery is required in some cases

Genomic and immune approach in platinum refractory HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with Immunotherapy: a novel combined profile

Introduction: Only a minority of patients with platinum refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (PR/HNSCC) gain some lasting benefit from immunotherapy. Methods: The combined role of the comprehensive genomic (through the FoundationOne Cdx test) and immune profiles of 10 PR/HNSCC patients treated with the anti-PD-1 nivolumab was evaluated. The immune profiles were studied both at baseline and at the second cycle of immunotherapy, weighing 20 circulating cytokines/chemokines, adhesion molecules, and 14 soluble immune checkpoints dosed through a multiplex assay. A connectivity map was obtained by calculating the Spearman correlation between the expression profiles of circulating molecules. Results: Early progression occurred in five patients, each of them showing TP53 alteration and three of them showing a mutation/loss/amplification of genes involved in the cyclin-dependent kinase pathway. In addition, ERB2 amplification (1 patient), BRCA1 mutation (1 patient), and NOTCH1 genes alteration (3 patients) occurred. Five patients achieved either stable disease or partial response. Four of them carried mutations in PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathways. In the only two patients, with a long response to immunotherapy, the tumor mutational burden (TMB) was high. Moreover, a distinct signature, in terms of network connectivity of the circulating soluble molecules, characterizing responder and non-responder patients, was evidenced. Moreover, a strong negative and statistically significant (p-value <= 0.05) correlation with alive status was evidenced for sE-selectin at T1. Conclusions: Our results highlighted the complexity and heterogeneity of HNSCCs, even though it was in a small cohort. Molecular and immune approaches, combined in a single profile, could represent a promising strategy, in the context of precision immunotherapy

\u201cComplex abdominal wall\u201d management: evidence-based guidelines of the Italian Consensus Conference

To date, there is no shared consensus on a definition of a complex abdominal wall in elective surgery and in the emergency, on indications, technical details, complications, and follow-up. The purpose of the conference was to lay the foundations for a homogeneous approach to the complex abdominal wall with the primary intent being to attain the following objectives: (1) to develop evidence-based recommendations to define \u201ccomplex abdominal wall\u201d; (2) indications in emergency and in elective cases; (3) management of \u201ccomplex abdominal wall\u201d; (4) techniques for temporary abdominal closure. The decompressive laparostomy should be considered in a case of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with critical conditions or after the failure of a medical treatment or less invasive methods. In the second one, beyond different mechanism, patients with surgical emergency diseases might reach the same pathophysiological end point of trauma patients where a preventive \u201copen abdomen\u201d might be indicated (a temporary abdominal closure: in the case of a non-infected field, the Wittmann patch and the NPWT had the best outcome followed by meshes; in the case of an infected field, NPWT techniques seem to be the preferred). The second priority is to create optimal both general as local conditions for healing: the right antimicrobial management, feeding\u2014preferably by the enteral route\u2014and managing correctly the open abdomen wall. The use of a mesh appears to be\u2014if and when possible\u2014the gold standard. There is a lot of enthusiasm about biological meshes. But the actual evidence supports their use only in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields but above all, to reduce the higher rate of recurrences, the wall anatomy and function should be restored in the midline, with or without component separation technique. On the other site has not to be neglected that the use of monofilament and macroporous non-absorbable meshes, in extraperitoneal position, in the setting of the complex abdomen with contamination, seems to have a cost effective role too. The idea of this consensus conference was mainly to try to bring order in the so copious, but not always so \u201cevident\u201d literature utilizing and exchanging the expertise of different specialists

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

A prospective cohort analysis of the prevalence and predictive factors of delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Italy: the DeDiLaCo Study

Background: The concept of early discharge ≤24 hours after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is still doubted in Italy. This prospective multicentre study aims to analyze the prevalence of patients undergoing elective LC who experienced a delayed discharge >24 hours in an extensive Italian national database and identify potential limiting factors of early discharge after LC. Methods: This is a prospective observational multicentre study performed from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 by 90 Italian surgical units. Results: A total of 4664 patients were included in the study. Clinical reasons were found only for 850 patients (37.7%) discharged >24 hours after LC. After excluding patients with nonclinical reasons for delayed discharge >24 hours, 2 groups based on the length of hospitalization were created: the Early group (≤24 h; 2414 patients, 73.9%) and the Delayed group (>24 h; 850 patients, 26.1%). At the multivariate analysis, ASA III class ( P <0.0001), Charlson's Comorbidity Index (P=0.001), history of choledocholithiasis (P=0.03), presence of peritoneal adhesions (P<0.0001), operative time >60 min (P<0.0001), drain placement (P<0.0001), pain ( P =0.001), postoperative vomiting (P=0.001) and complications (P<0.0001) were independent predictors of delayed discharge >24 hours. Conclusions: The majority of delayed discharges >24 hours after LC in our study were unrelated to the surgery itself. ASA class >II, advanced comorbidity, the presence of peritoneal adhesions, prolonged operative time, and placement of abdominal drainage were intraoperative variables independently associated with failure of early discharge

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 (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<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