BackgroundObstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) is a challenging matter in terms of obstruction release as well of oncological issues. Several options are available and no guidelines are established. The paper aims to generate evidenced based recommendations on management of OLCC.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were queried for publications focusing on OLCC published prior to April 2010. A extensive retrieval, analyses, and grading of the literature was undertaken. The findings of the research were presented and largely discussed among panellist and audience at the Consensus Conference of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and Peritoneum and Surgery (PnS) Society held in Bologna July 2010. Comparisons of techniques are presented and final committee recommendation are enounced.ResultsHartmann's procedure should be preferred to loop colostomy (Grade 2B). Hartmann's procedure offers no survival benefit compared to segmental colonic resection with primary anastomosis (Grade 2C+); Hartmann's procedure should be considered in patients with high surgical risk (Grade 2C). Total colectomy and segmental colectomy with intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity, however total colectomy is associated with higher rates impaired bowel function (Grade 1A). Segmental resection and primary anastomosis either with manual decompression or intraoperative colonic irrigation are associated with same mortality/morbidity rate (Grade 1A). In palliation stent placement is associated with similar mortality/morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay (Grade 2B). Stents as a bridge to surgery seems associated with lower mortality rate, shorter hospital stay, and a lower colostomy formation rate (Grade 1B).ConclusionsLoop colostomy and staged procedure should be adopted in case of dramatic scenario, when neoadjuvant therapy could be expected. Hartmann's procedure should be performed in case of high risk of anastomotic dehiscence. Subtotal and total colectomy should be attempted when cecal perforation or in case of synchronous colonic neoplasm. Primary resection and anastomosis with manual decompression seems the procedure of choice. Colonic stents represent the best option when skills are available. The literature power is relatively poor and the existing RCT are often not sufficiently robust in design thus, among 6 possible treatment modalities, only 2 reached the Grade A.

This meta-analysis found that organ/space SSI rates as well as ostomy nonreversal rates were decreased in PRA at the cost of prolonging the operating time.

Aim We aim to compare machine learning with neural network performance in predicting R0 resection (R0), length of stay > 14 days (LOS), major complication rates at 30 days postoperatively (COMP) and survival greater than 1 year (SURV) for patients having pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Method A deep learning computer was built and the programming environment was established. The PelvEx Collaborative database was used which contains anonymized data on patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or locally recurrent colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2014. Logistic regression, a support vector machine and an artificial neural network (ANN) were trained. Twenty per cent of the data were used as a test set for calculating prediction accuracy for R0, LOS, COMP and SURV. Model performance was measured by plotting receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). Results Machine learning models and ANNs were trained on 1147 cases. The AUROC for all outcome predictions ranged from 0.608 to 0.793 indicating modest to moderate predictive ability. The models performed best at predicting LOS > 14 days with an AUROC of 0.793 using preoperative and operative data. Visualized logistic regression model weights indicate a varying impact of variables on the outcome in question. Conclusion This paper highlights the potential for predictive modelling of large international databases. Current data allow moderate predictive ability of both complex ANNs and more classic methods.

Background The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research.

This document outlines the important aspects of caring for patients who have been diagnosed with advanced pelvic cancer. It is primarily aimed at those who are establishing a service that adequately caters to this patient group. The relevant literature has been summarized and an attempt made to simplify the approach to management of these complex cases.

Aim The aim of this meta-analysis was to comparatively evaluate the outcomes of primary anastomosis (PRA) and nonrestorative resection (NRR) as emergency surgery and ostomy reversal in patients with perforated diverticulitis and peritonitis. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Postoperative morbidity following emergency resection was the primary end-point. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool including recruitment bias and crossover with intention-to-treat analysis. The Haenszel-Mantel method with odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) and the inverse variance method with mean difference (MD, 95% CI) as effect measures were utilized for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results Four randomized controlled trials totaling 382 patients (180 PRA vs 204 NRR) were included. Morbidity rates following emergency resection did not differ (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.65, 1.51; P = 0.95; number needed to treat/harm (NNT) 96). Organ/space surgical site infection rates were 3.3% in PRA vs 11.3% in NRR (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.12, 0.74; P = 0.009; NNT = 13). Postoperative morbidity rates following ostomy reversal were significantly lower in PRA (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15, 0.64; P = 0.001; NNT = 7). Pooled ostomy non-reversal rates were 16% in PRA vs 35.5% in NRR (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22, 0.62; P = 0.0001; NNT = 6) with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 63%; s 2 = 8.17). Meta-regression analysis revealed significant negative correlation between the PRA-to-NRR crossover rate and the ostomy non-reversal rate (P = 0.029). Conclusion This meta-analysis found that PRA was associated with better short-and long-term outcomes at the cost of significantly longer operating time at emergency surgery.

No abstract

No abstract