Introduction: Transverse colon cancer (TCC) is poorly studied, and TCC cases are often excluded from large prospective randomized trials because of their complexity and their potentially high complication rate. The best surgical approach for TCC has yet to be established. The aim of this large retrospective multicenter Italian series is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of both hemicolectomy and transverse colectomy in order to identify the best surgical approach. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with mid-transverse colon cancer treated with a segmental colon resection or an extended hemicolectomy (right or left) between 2006 and 2016 in 28 high-volume (more than 70 procedures/year) Italian referral centers for colorectal surgery.Results: The study included 1529 patients, 388 of whom underwent a segmental resection while 1141 underwent an extended resection. A higher number of complications has been reported in the segmental group than in the extended group (30.1% versus 23.6%; p 0.010). In 42 cases the main complication was the anastomotic leak (4.4% versus 2.2%; p 0.020). Recovery outcomes also showed statistical differences: time to first flatus (p 0.014), time to first mobilization (p 0.040), and overall hospital stay (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the extended group. Even if overall survival were similar between the groups (95.1% versus 97%; p 0.384), 3-year disease-free survival worsened after segmental resection (78.1% versus 86.2%; p 0.001). Conclusions: According to our results, an extended right colon resection for TCC seems to be surgically safer and more oncologically valid.

Background/Aim: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic imposed extraordinary restriction measures and a complete reorganization of the Health System. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on emergency surgical department accesses. Patients and Methods: Patients admitted to surgical emergency departments was retrospectively recorded during the Lockdown (

BaCKgrOuND: in the surgical scenario, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SarS-CoV-2) diffusion worldwide entails on the one hand the need to continue to perform surgery at least in case of emergency or oncologic surgery, in patients with or without COronaVirus Disease 2019 (COViD-19); and on the other hand, to avoid the pandemic diffusion both between patients and medical and nursing team. The aim of this study was to report our surgical management protocol during the COViD-19 pandemic in an italian non-referral center. MeTHODS: Data retrieved during the outbreak for the COViD-19 pandemic, from March 8 to May 4, 2020 (study period) were analyzed and compared to data obtained during the same period in 2019 (control period). reSuLTS: During the study period, 41 surgical procedures (24 electives, 17 emergency surgical procedures) underwent surgery in comparison to 99 procedures in the control period. Stratifying the procedures in elective and emergency surgery, and based on the indication for surgery, the only statistically significant difference was observed in the elective surgery regarding the abdominal wall surgery (0 vs. 13 procedures, P=0.0339). Statistically significant differences were not observed regarding the colorectal and the breast oncologic surgery. all stuff members were COViD-19 free. CONCLuSiONS: The present protocol proved to be safe and useful to prevent SarS-CoV-2 infection before and after surgery for both patients and stuff. The pandemic was responsible for the reduction in number of procedures performed, anyway for the oncologic surgery a statistically significant volume reduction in comparison to 2019 was not observed.

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.