No abstract

AIMTo analyze the anatomy of sacral venous plexus flow, the causes of injuries and the methods for controlling presacral hemorrhage during surgery for rectal cancer.METHODSA review of the databases MEDLINE® and Embase™ was conducted, and relevant scientific articles published between January 1960 and June 2016 were examined. The anatomy of the sacrum and its venous plexus, as well as the factors that influence bleeding, the causes of this complication, and its surgical management were defined.RESULTSThis is a review of 58 published articles on presacral venous plexus injury during the mobilization of the rectum and on techniques used to treat presacral venous bleeding. Due to the lack of cases published in the literature, there is no consensus on which is the best technique to use if there is presacral bleeding during mobilization in surgery for rectal cancer. This review may provide a tool to help surgeons make decisions regarding how to resolve this serious complication.CONCLUSIONA series of alternative treatments are described; however, a conventional systematic review in which optimal treatment is identified could not be performed because few cases were analyzed in most publications.

Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006e2009; II) 2010e2013; III)2014e2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/ radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p ¼ 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p ¼ 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p ¼ 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59e0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P ¼ 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion:There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN þ benefited the most.

No abstract

Age does not influence the surgical results after colon cancer resection but is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. CSS is lower in patients who are ≥75 years old.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract