Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is the most common proctological disease in the Western countries. However, its real prevalence is underestimated due to the frequent self-medication. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of HD. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by American College of Chest Physicians. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to determine whether there are clinically relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) and LRC with extracorporeal IA (EIA). Background: IIA and EIA are 2 well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after LRC. There are no high-quality studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other. Methods: This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a benign or malignant right-sided colon neoplasm. Primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03045107. Results: A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Median operative time was comparable in IIA versus EIA group {130 [interquartile range (IQR) 105–195] vs 130 (IQR 110–180) min; P = 0.770} and no intraoperative complications occurred. The quicker recovery of bowel function after IIA than EIA [gas: 2 (IQR 2–3) vs 3 (IQR 2–3) days, P = 0.003; stool: 4 (IQR 3–5) vs 4.5 (IQR 3–5) days, P = 0.032] was not reflected in any advantage in the primary endpoint: median LOS was similar in the 2 groups [6 (IQR 5–7) vs 6 (IQR 5–8) days; P = 0.839]. No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, length of skin incision, 30-day morbidity (17.1% vs 15.7%, P = 0.823), reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the 2 groups. Conclusions: LRC with IIA is associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function than LRC with EIA; however, it does not reflect into a shorter LOS.

TEM had no long-term effect on anorectal function or QoL. Lower anal resting pressure at early follow-up was not associated with defaecation problems in patients who were continent before surgery.

No abstract

No abstract

Endometriosis is a common disorder in females of reproductive age. Surgical scar endometrioma after cesarean section develops in 1-2% of patients, and usually presents as a tender and painful abdominal wall mass. The diagnosis is suggested by pre or perimenstrual pelvic pain and is often established only by histology. In this retrospective observational cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of five patients with a histopathological diagnosis of scar endometriosis. A scar mass was found on a previous Pfannenstiel incision in four patients and in a median cesarean section in one patient. The mean age at diagnosis (38.6 years, median 38) was older than reported elsewhere. A histological examination of the surgical specimen confirmed the diagnosis of endometriosis in all cases. During the follow-up period (mean 34.6 months), local recurrence (n = 1) and pelvic recurrence (n = 1) were treated surgically. Surgery is the treatment of choice for surgical scar endometriosis. Excision with histologically proven free surgical margins of 1 cm is mandatory to prevent recurrence. As scar endometriosis may be associated with pelvic localization, explorative abdominal laparoscopy may be indicated to exclude the intraperitoneal spread of the disease in symptomatic patients.

Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer is associated with quicker return of bowel function, reduced postoperative morbidity rates and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, with no differences in long-term survival. Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 30% of patients enrolled in randomized control trials comparing open and laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer. In this review, reasons for conversion are anatomical-related factors, disease-related-factors and surgeon-related factors. Body mass index, local tumour extension and co-morbidities are independent predictors of conversion. The current evidence has shown that patients with converted resection for colon cancer have similar outcomes compared to patients undergoing a laparoscopic completed or open resection. The few studies that have assessed the outcomes after conversion of laparoscopic rectal resection reported significantly higher rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay in converted patients compared to laparoscopically treated patients. No definitive conclusions can be drawn when converted and open rectal resections are compared. Early and pre-emptive conversion appears to have more favourable outcomes than reactive conversion; however, further large studies are needed to better define the optimal timing of conversion. With regard to long-term oncologic outcome, overall and disease-free survival in the case of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery seems to be worse than those achieved in patients in whom resection was successfully completed by laparoscopy. Although a worse long-term oncologic outcome has been suggested, it remains difficult to draw a proper conclusion due to the heterogeneity of the long-term outcomes as well as the inclusion of both colon and rectal cancer patients in most of the studies. Therefore, we discuss the currently available evidence of the impact of conversion in laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer on both short-term outcomes and long-term survival.

Hemorrhoids are one of the most common medical and surgical diseases and the main reason for a visit to a coloproctologist. This consensus statement was drawn up by the Italian society of colorectal surgery in order to provide practice parameters for an accurate assessment of the disease and consequent appropriate treatment. The authors made a careful search in the main databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane), and all results were classified on the basis of the grade of recommendation (A-C) of the American College of Chest Physicians.