We make the following recommendations: every liver resection should be planned after intraoperative ultrasonography, anatomical surgical procedure should be preferred instead of wedge resection, and modern devices should be used, like Argon Beam and Ligasure dissector, to reduce the incidence of both intraoperative and postoperative bleeding and biliary leakage.

No abstract

Summary The best therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still debated. Hepatic resection (HR) is the treatment of choice for single HCC in Child A patients, whereas liver transplantation (LT) is usually reserved for Child B and C patients with single or multiple nodules. The aim of this study was to compare HR and LT for HCC within the Milan criteria on an intention‐to‐treat basis. Forty‐eight patients were treated by LT and 38 by HR. The median time on the waiting list for transplantation was 118 days. The estimated overall survival was significantly higher (P = 0.005) in the LT group than in the HR one. The estimated freedom from recurrence was also significantly higher (P < 0.0001) for LT patients than for HR ones. Indeed, the probability of HCC recurrence after resection was higher than after transplantation achieving 31% and 76% for HR and 2% and 2% for LT at 3 and 5 years after surgery. Multivariate analysis confirmed that transplantation was superior to resection in terms of patient’s survival and risk of HCC recurrence. We conclude that LT is superior to HR for small HCC in cirrhotic patients assuming that LT should be performed within 6–10 months after listing to reduce the dropouts for reasons of tumor progression.

No abstract

Involvement of the lateral resection margins correlates with a poor prognosis and indicates the likelihood of local recurrence of rectal cancer. Tumour regression grading and the depth of neoplastic infiltration within the perirectal fat are important prognostic factors that need to be evaluated routinely.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is a widely purposed and performed treatment for rectal cancer. Downstaging effects possibly enhance the rate of curative surgery and may enable sphincter preservation in low-lying tumours. The current study examines the clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in a neoadjuvant CRT-surgery protocol for rectal cancer, distinguishing between intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal cancer. From 1994 to 2003, 58 patients with a primary diagnosis of rectal cancer were enrolled in a single-centre, not randomized study based on 5-week sessions of radiotherapy associated with a 30-day protracted venous 5-FU infusion followed by surgical resection. The study population was divided into two groups according to the localization of the tumour: 18 intraperitoneal and 40 extraperitoneal (EPt). Fifty-eight patients were treated with neoadjuvant CRT and surgery. Overall mortality rate was 25.9%, no deaths were recorded during hospitalization; 10 patients (all EPt) died because of recurrence. Significant differences in disease-free survival and overall survival rates were found between intraperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal tumours (P = 0.006), both intraperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal tumours N(0) (P = 0.04 and P < 0.05) and intraperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal tumours N(+) (P < 0.05). We diagnosed all local recurrence and liver metastasis in extraperitoneal tumours (t = 0.02 and t = 0.04), and only one case of lung metastasis arose from intraperitoneal cancer. Extraperitoneal tumours could be more aggressive than intraperitoneal ones, spreading more precociously, and/or less responsive to the neoadjuvant CRT because of their localization rather than biological differences. Aside from lymph node status, the location of the tumour with respect to the peritoneum border, is also a prognostic factor of survival in rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant CRT and surgery.

How best to approach esophagectomy is a controversial issue. In the last decade, the opportunity to use minimally invasive surgical methods for esophagectomy has been documented, but their real advantages over conventional surgery have yet to be clearly established. The aim of this study was to compare a series of patients who underwent laparoscopic esophagectomy with those who underwent open surgery to ascertain the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of the former surgical techniques. Between January 2002 and May 2004, 14 patients with cancer of the esophagus underwent laparoscopic esophagectomy and another 14 had conventional open esophagectomy. Their demographic features, and intraoperative and postoperative data were compared. The 2 groups were comparable in terms of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and site of the neoplasm. The operating times were the same for transhiatal laparoscopic esophagectomy and conventional surgery, although using the thoraco-laparoscopic access took longer than the thoraco-laparotomic procedure (P<0.05). The hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopy (P<0.05). No differences emerged in terms of morbidity, mortality, number of transfusions, and time in the intensive care. The numbers of lymph nodes removed were comparable. In conclusion, it is feasible and safe to use a laparoscopic approach instead of open surgery for esophagectomy, but the former does not offer very significant clinical advantages in the postoperative stage. A shorter hospital stay seems to be the most significant finding. The minimally invasive procedure would seem to assure oncological radicality because it enables lymphadenectomy to be as thorough as in the conventional surgical approach.

The treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma should be both the most radical to obtain the best outcome and to reduce the recurrence's rate, and the most suitable according to the patient's condition, lesion's characteristics and underlying liver disease: because of the large number of factors affecting the outcome of Hcc, unfortunately, we are still far from an agreement upon a group of criteria useful to select the best candidates for liver resection.