Summary Background 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03471494 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

Introduction: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been recently proposed to overcome the difficulties of the standard TME approach, allowing better visualization and dissection of the mesorectal fascia. Although TaTME seems very promising, the evidence and body of knowledge on achieving proficiency in performing it are still sparse. Aim: To evaluate the learning curve of TaTME based on a single centre's experience. Material and methods: Consecutive patients undergoing TaTME since 2014 in a tertiary referral department were included in the study. All procedures were performed by one experienced surgeon. CUSUM curve analyses were performed to evaluate learning curves. Results: Sixty-six patients underwent TaTME. After analysis of postoperative morbidity rate, intraoperative adverse effects and operative time, we estimated that 40 cases are needed to achieve TaTME proficiency. Subsequently, patients were divided into two groups: before (40 patients) and after overcoming the learning curve (26 patients). Group 1 had higher readmission (p = 0.041) and complication rates (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of intraoperative adverse effects, length of stay or pathological quality of the specimen. Conclusions: Transanal total mesorectal excision is a promising yet technically demanding procedure and requires at least 40 cases to complete the learning curve. More data are needed to introduce it as a standard procedure for low rectal cancer treatment.

Introduction The ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol revolutionized perioperative care for gastrointestinal surgical procedures. However, little is known about the association between adherence to the ERAS protocol in gastric cancer surgery and the oncological outcome. Aim To explore the relation between adherence to the ERAS protocol and the oncological outcome in gastric cancer patients. Material and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients treated for gastric cancer between 2013 and 2016. All patients were treated perioperatively with a 14-item ERAS protocol. Every patient underwent regular follow-up every 3 months for 3 years after surgery. 80% compliance to the ERAS protocol was the goal during perioperative care. Based on the level of compliance, patients were divided into group 1 and group 2 (compliance of ≥ 80% and < 80%, respectively). Results Compliance to the ERAS protocol was not a risk factor for diminished overall survival – probability of 3-year survival was 63% in group 1 and 56% in group 2 (p = 0.75). The proportional Cox model revealed that only stage III gastric cancer was a risk factor of poor prognosis in patients operated on for gastric cancer (HR = 7.89, 95% CI: 2.96–20.89; p = 0.0001). Conclusions High adherence to the ERAS protocol did not improve overall survival in our 3-year observation. Only the stage of the disease, according to the AJCC classification, was identified as a risk factor for poor prognosis.

Purpose: Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract. The gold standard method is surgical resection. The approach to rectal cancer is still controversial. Nowadays, robotic approach gains popularity in comparison to traditional laparoscopy. However, there is lack of studies assessing rectal resections with primary anastomosis. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes of interest were morbidity and short-term complications. Results: An initial reference search yielded 1250 articles. Finally, we chose six studies covering 1580 patients that we included in the quantitative analysis. In our study, we demonstrated that laparoscopic and robotic surgery are non-inferior to one another in terms of morbidity (RR=1.1 95% CI: 0.89-1.39), major complication rate (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.60-1.69) or in length of hospitalization (MD=0,15 95% CI: -0.60−0.90). The latter has slight advantage in quality of mesorectal excision (RD = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.35 − -0.03. I2=69%) and anastomotic leakage rate (OR=2.25, 95% CI: 1.23-4.09, I2=0%). Conclusion: In certain cases Robotic Surgery provide better quality of resected specimen and lower leakage ratio, nevertheless due to heterogeneity the results are uncertain. There is substantial need for large randomized controlled studies.

IntroductionIn order to select high-risk patients, many prognostic scales have been invented. Among them, Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS 65 scales were considered the most useful.Material and methodsPatients with upper GI tract bleeding, treated between 2017 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled to the study. Every patient had a Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS 65 score calculated retrospectively. Data on hospitalization as blood transfusions, length of hospital stay, rebleeding, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality was included into data-base.ResultsUnivariate logistic regression revealed that only the AIMS65 scale was a prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality (OR 11.028; 95% CI: [2.271, 53.563], p=0.001). The AIMS 65 score >2 was the only factor predicting the need of >4 blood units transfusion during hospitalization (OR 3.977; 95% CI: [1.305, 12.122], p=0.015), whereas Glasgow-Blatchford scale >5 was the only risk factor for the need of fresh frozen plasma transfusion (OR 3.657; 95% CI: [1.010-13.242], p=0.048). The area under a curve (AUC) in the ROC analysis revealed that the AIMS 65 scale was the most accurate in mortality prediction (AUC=0.859, p=0.002), whereas Rockall score and Glasgow-Blatchford were not significant (AUC=0.614, p=0.093 and AUC=0.504, p=0.97, respectively).ConclusionsBased on our results, we recommend using AIMS 65 scoring system. It’s simple and requires few of parameters to be counted. Also, it proved to be the most efficient in predicting in-hospital mortality.