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: Global experience with splenic flexure cancer is limited because of its low incidence. Both limited (segmental) and extended resections are performed, because agreement on which is the adequate procedure has not been reached. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether segmental resection is as safe and effective as extended resection. DESIGN: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive resections of splenic flecure cancer between January 2006 and December 2016 using data from the National Colorectal Cancer Network of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology following the guidelines set out in the STROBE statement. SETTING: Data were obtained for 31 Italian Referral Centers for Colorectal Surgery. PATIENTS: A total of 1304 patients were submitted to resection of the splenic flexure (n = 791, 60.7%) or extended procedures (extended right and left colectomies; n = 513, 39.3%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated Clavien-Dindo ≥3 postoperative complications and oncological (number of lymph nodes removed, length of free proximal and distal margins, rate of R0 resections) and survival outcomes. RESULTS: The 2 arms were well balanced in regard to sex, BMI, ASA and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores, and disease stage. Limited resection was performed more frequently using a minimally invasive approach (62.1% vs 50.9%, p < 0.001) and with shorter operation times than extended procedures (165 vs 189 minutes, p < 0.001), but the same Clavien-Dindo ≥3 postoperative complications (6.44% vs 6.43%, p = 0.99), 30-day mortality (0.63% vs 0.38%), oncological outcomes, and survival rates (5-year overall survival 0.84 vs 0.83, 5-year progression-free survival 0.85 vs 0.84). LIMITATIONS: There are limitations inherent to the retrospective nature of the study and a potential lack of consistency in treatment across centers over time. Indications as to why a specific operation was chosen were based mostly on surgeons’ beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental resection is a safe and effective treatment option for cancer of the splenic flexure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B307. LA RESECCIÓN DE COLON SEGMENTARIA ES UNA OPCIÓN DE TRATAMIENTO SEGURA Y EFICAZ PARA EL CÁNCER DE COLON DE LA FLEXIÓN ESPLÉNICA: UN ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO A NIVEL NACIONAL DE LA SOCIEDAD ITALIANA DE ONCOLOGÍA QUIRÚRGICA - GRUPO COLABORATIVO RED DE CÁNCER COLORRECTAL ANTECEDENTES: La experiencia global con el cáncer de flexión esplénica es limitada debido a su baja incidencia. Se realizan resecciones limitadas (segmentarias) y extendidas, ya que no se ha llegado a un acuerdo sobre cuál es el procedimiento adecuado. OBJETIVO: El propósito de este estudio fue investigar si la resección segmentaria es tan segura y efectiva como la resección extendida. DISEÑO: Este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo a nivel nacional incluyó todas las resecciones consecutivas de cáncer de flecura esplénica entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2016 utilizando datos de la Red Nacional de Cáncer Colorrectal de la Sociedad Italiana de Oncología Quirúrgica siguiendo las pautas establecidas en la declaración STROBE. ENTORNO CLINICO: Se obtuvieron datos para 31 centros de referencia italianos para cirugía colorrectal. PACIENTES: Un total de 1304 pacientes fueron sometidos a resección de la flexión esplénica (n = 791, 60.7%) o procedimientos extendidos (colectomías extendidas derecha e izquierda; n = 513, 39.3%). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Evaluamos Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complicaciones postoperatorias y oncológicas (número de ganglios linfáticos extirpados, longitud de márgenes proximales y distales libres, tasa de resecciones R0) y resultados de supervivencia. RESULTADOS: Los dos brazos estaban bien equilibrados en cuanto a sexo, IMC, ASA y puntajes ECOG, y etapa de la enfermedad. La resección limitada se realizó con mayor frecuencia utilizando un enfoque mínimamente invasivo (62.1% versus 50,9%, p < 0.001) y con tiempos de operación más cortos que los procedimientos extendidos (165 min versus 189 min, p <0.001), pero el mismo Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complicaciones postoperatorias (6,44% versus 6,43%, p = 0.99), mortalidad a los 30 días (0,63% versus 0,38%), resultados oncológicos y tasas de supervivencia (5-y OS 0,84 versus 0,83, 5-PFS 0,85 versus 0,84). LIMITACIONES: Existen limitaciones inherentes a la naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio y una posible falta de consistencia en el tratamiento entre centros a lo largo del tiempo. Las indicaciones de por qué se eligió una operación específica se basaron principalmente en crieterios de los cirujanos. CONCLUSIONES: La resección segmentaria es una opción de tratamiento segura y efectiva para el cáncer de la flexión esplénica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B307. (Traducción—Dr. Adrian Ortega)
Is laparoscopic left adrenalectomy with the anterior submesocolic approach for Conn's or Cushing's syndrome equally safe and effective as the lateral and anterior ones?Full Title: Is laparoscopic left adrenalectomy with the anterior submesocolic approach for Conn's or Cushing's syndrome equally safe and effective as the lateral and anterior ones?Article Type: 2018 EAES Oral
IMPORTANCEExtending the interval between the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery may enhance tumor response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, data on the association of delaying surgery with long-term outcome in patients who had a minor or poor response are lacking.OBJECTIVE To assess a large series of patients who had minor or no tumor response to CRT and the association of shorter or longer waiting times between CRT and surgery with shortand long-term outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Data from 1701 consecutive patients with rectal cancer treated in 12 Italian referral centers were analyzed for colorectal surgery between January 2000 and December 2014. Patients with a minor or null tumor response (ypT stage of 2 to 3 or ypN positive) stage greater than 0 to neoadjuvant CRT were selected for the study. The data were analyzed between March and July 2020.EXPOSURES Patients who had a minor or null tumor response were divided into 2 groups according to the wait time between neoadjuvant therapy end and surgery. Differences in surgical and oncological outcomes between these 2 groups were explored. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were overall and disease-free survival between the 2 groups.RESULTS Of a total of 1064 patients, 654 (61.5%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 64 (55-71) years. A total of 579 patients (54.4%) had a shorter wait time (8 weeks or less) 485 patients (45.6%) had a longer wait time (greater than 8 weeks). A longer waiting time before surgery was associated with worse 5-and 10-year overall survival rates (67.6% [95% CI, 63.1%-71.7%] vs 80.3% [95% CI, 76.5%-83.6%] at 5 years; 40.1% [95% CI, 33.5%-46.5%] vs 57.8% [95% CI, 52.1%-63.0%] at 10 years; P < .001). Also, delayed surgery was associated with worse 5-and 10-year disease-free survival (59.6% [95% CI, 54.9%-63.9%] vs 72.0% [95% CI, 67.9%-75.7%] at 5 years; 36.2% [95% CI, 29.9%-42.4%] vs 53.9% [95% CI, 48.5%-59.1%] at 10 years; P < .001). At multivariate analysis, a longer waiting time was associated with an augmented risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.50-2.26; P < .001) and death/recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.39-2.04; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cohort study, a longer interval before surgery after completing neoadjuvant CRT was associated with worse overall and disease-free survival in tumors with a poor pathological response to preoperative CRT. Based on these findings, patients who do not respond well to CRT should be identified early after the end of CRT and undergo surgery without delay.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Background and aims Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts’ consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients. Methods The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies’ expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020–January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations. Conclusions The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.
In our experience, reoperation after TEM using a laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe, with low conversion rates and optimal postoperative results.
Background The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic. Methods The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March–May 2020), II (June–September 2020), and III (October–December 2020). Results Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (> 200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (< 20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices. Conclusion This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.