Conservative approach is the treatment of choice, eventually associated with percutaneus drainage. Surgical approach should be reserved for severe cases or when conservative approaches fail.

Retroperitoneal schwannomas represent 0.5%-3% of all retroperitoneal tumors. Complete surgical removal is the treatment of choice because it permits a correct histological diagnosis and prevents eventual degeneration. Laparoscopic surgery has been reported as safe and effective by several authors. We present a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the role of laparoscopy in surgical resection of retroperitoneal schwannomas, and we present a case showing the technique (with video). Laparoscopic resection in experienced hands is safe and effective, and guarantees excellent postoperative results in terms of patient recovery.

Esophagojejunal anastomosis leakage is one of the major complications after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer and is an independent predictor of survival. Our aim is to systematically review the literature and discuss the reported therapeutic approaches to identify the best therapeutic approach. Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CILEA Archive, BMJ Clinical Evidence, and Up ToDate databases were screened limiting the research to articles written in English from January 1992 through December 2013. This way a total of 474 manuscripts were retrieved for furthermore evaluation. Eleven manuscripts were considered eligible and the study is focused on those works. We analyzed a total of 3,893 patients and 114 cases of esophagojejunal anastomosis leakage. Different treatments were grouped into three main categories: conservative approach (66 cases), endoscopic approach (21 cases), and surgical approach (27 cases). The overall mortality rate is 26.32 per cent and surgical approach showed the higher rate. According to the reported data, a complete resolution of the leakage can be achieved in an interval ranging from 7 to 28 days in the group treated conservatively. Conservative approach should always be considered as the treatment of choice. Reoperation may be necessary in case of wide dehiscence or when other treatments fail; therefore, the high mortality rate related to this procedure is due to the comorbidities of patients undergoing relaparotomy. Finally, endoscopic approach with endoclips seems promising but needs furthermore studies.

Neoadjuvant treatment in non-metastatic pancreatic cancer (PaC) has the theoretical advantages of downstaging the tumor, sterilizing any present systemic undetectable disease, selecting patients for surgery and administering therapy to each patient. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the state of the art on neoadjuvant protocols for non-metastatic PaC. A literature search over the last 10 years was conducted, and papers had to be focused on resectable, borderline resectable (BLR) or locally advanced (LA) histo- or cytologically proven PaC; to be prospective studies or prospectively collected databases; to report percentage of protocol achievement and survival data at least in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Twelve studies were eligible for systematic review. Studies included a total of 624 patients: 248 resectable, 268 BLR, 71 LA and 37 non-specified. All studies were included for meta-analysis. ITT overall survival (OS) was 16.7 months (95% CI 15.16-18.26 months); for resected patients OS was 22.78 months (95% CI 20.42-25.16), and for eventually non-resected patients it was 9.89 months (95% CI 8.84-10.96). Neoadjuvant approaches for resectable, BLR and LA PaC are spreading. Outcomes tend to be better outside an RCT context, but strong evidences are lacking. Actually such treatments should be performed only in a randomized clinical trial setting.

BACKGROUND:Robotic right colectomy (RRC) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach is worthwhile in enhancing patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications, compared with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Literature is still fragmented and no meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the two procedures. This work aims at reducing this gap in literature, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the differences and similarities between RRC and LRC, focusing on short-term outcomes.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing RRC and LRC, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Peri-operative outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leakage rates, blood loss, operative time) constituted the study end points.RESULTS:Six studies, including 168 patients undergoing RRC and 348 patients undergoing LRC were considered as suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to sex, body mass index, presence of malignant disease, previous abdominal surgery, and different with respect to age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and LRC regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, number of retrieved lymph nodes, development of anastomotic leakage and other complications, overall morbidity, rates of reoperation, overall mortality, hospital stays. RRC resulted in significantly longer operative time.CONCLUSIONS:The RRC procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. However, operative times are longer comparing to LRC and no advantages in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes are demonstrated with the use of the robotic surgical system.

Esophageal carcinoma is the eighth most frequent cancer worldwide and the sixth cancer-related cause of death. Here we propose a new meta-analysis to identify the most appropriate approach for resectable adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and cardia (Siewert 1-2). A systematic literature search was performed independently by 2 of the manuscript's authors using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. The following criteria were set for inclusion in this meta-analysis: 1) studies comparing transthoracic esophagectomy and transhiatal esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus; 2) studies reporting at least 1 perioperative outcome; and 3) if more than 1 study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included. A total of 6 articles dated between 1996 and 2012 fulfilled the selection criteria and were therefore included in this meta-analysis; this pool of articles consisted of 2 prospective and 4 retrospective studies. A statistically significant difference favoring the transthoracic procedure was noted regarding the number of retrieved lymph nodes, 5-year disease-free survival rate and 5-year overall survival rate (p = 0.001, p = 0.05 and p = 0.03, respectively). In conclusion, transthoracic esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and esophagogastric junction (Siewert 1-2) appears to be superior to the transhiatal approach in terms of oncological outcomes.

[No abstract available

No abstract