BackgroundThe increased use of laparoscopy has resulted in certain complications specifically associated with the laparoscopic approach, such as port-site incisional hernia (PIH). Until today, it is not finally clarified if port-site closure should be performed by fascia suture or not. Furthermore, the optimal treatment strategy in PIH (suture vs. mesh) is still widely unclear. The aim of this study was to present our experience with PIH in two independent departments and to derive possible treatment strategies from these results.MethodsBetween 2003 and 2013, 54 patients were operated due to port-site incisional hernia in two surgical centres. Their data were collected and retrospectively analyzed depending on surgical technique of port-site hernia repair (Mesh repair group, n = 13 vs. Suture only group, n = 41).ResultsPort site incisional hernia occurred in 96% (52 patients) after the use of trocars with 10 mm or larger diameter. Patients treated with mesh repair had significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (32 ± 9 vs. 27 ± 4; p = 0.023) and significantly higher rates of cardiac diseases (77% vs. 39%; p = 0.026) than patients in the suture only group. Mean fascial defect size was significantly larger in the Mesh repair group than in the Suture only group (31 ± 24 mm vs. 24 ± 32 mm; p = 0.007) and mean time of operation was significantly longer in patients operated with mesh repair (83 ± 47 min vs. 40 ± 28 min; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mean hospital stay (3 ± 4 days; p = 0.057) and hernia recurrence rates (9%; p = 0.653) between study groups. Mean time of follow up was 32 ± 35 months.ConclusionsIn Port sites of 10 mm and larger diameter fascia should be closed by suture, whereas the risk of hernia development in 5 mm trocar placements seems to be a rare complication. Port-site incisional hernia should be treated by suture or mesh repair depending on fascial defect size and the patients' risk factors regarding preexisting deseases and body mass index.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short‐term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non‐transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed‐effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

No abstract

No abstract