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.

Background Aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in comparison to conventional laparoscopic approach (LaTME) in terms of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Methods Forty-six patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer between 2013 and 2017 were enrolled. Primary outcome was the severity of faecal incontinence, assessed both before the treatment and 6 months after ileostomy reversal. LARS score and Jorge-Wexner scale were utilized to analyze its severity. Results Twenty (87%) from TaTME and 21 (91%) from LaTME group developed LARS postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of LARS occurrence ( p = 0.63) and severity. The median Wexner score was comparable in both groups (8 [IQR: 4–12] vs 7 [3–11], p = 0.83). Univariate analysis revealed that postoperative complications were a risk factor for LARS development ( p = 0.02). Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss and intraoperative adverse events did not differ significantly between groups either. Five TaTME patients developed postoperative complications, while there were morbidity 6 cases in LaTME group. Quality of mesorectal excision was comparable with 20 and 19 complete cases in TaTME and LaTME groups, respectively. Conclusions TaTME provided comparable outcomes in terms of functional outcomes in comparison to LaTME for total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancers. Having said that, LARS prevalence is still high and requires further evaluation of the technique.

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new technique that is designed to overcome the limits of the open and laparoscopic approach for rectal resections. Objective: This study is designed to compare TaTME with standard laparoscopic TME (LaTME). Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases covering a up to October 2018. Inclusion criteria for study enrolment: (1) study comparing laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer vs. TaTME for rectal malignancy, (2) reporting of overall morbidity, operative time, or major complications. Results: Eleven non-randomized studies were eligible with a total of 778 patients. We found statistical significant differences in regard to major complications in favour of TaTME (RR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.31–0.97; p = 0.04). We did not found significant differences regarding overall complications intraoperative adverse effects, operative time, anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess occurrence, Surgical Site Infection, reoperations, Length of stay, completeness of mesorectal excision, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin, and distal resection margin. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows benefits of TaTME technique regarding major postoperative complications. Regarding clinicopathological features transanal approach is not superior to LaTME. Currently, the quality of the evidence on benefits of TaTME is low due to lack of randomized controlled trials, which needs to be taken into consideration in further evaluation of the technique. Further evaluation of TaTME require conducting large randomized control trials.

IntroductionDespite the progress in the treatment of colorectal cancer, there is still no optimal strategy for tumours located adjacent to the anal sphincter. This study aims to evaluate oncological and functional results of surgery for rectal cancer in unfavourable locations in proximity to anal sphincters.Materials and methodsPatients with rectal cancer, which was either initially infiltrating the anal sphincter or located in the close proximity of the sphincter, were included in the study. Patients were submitted to extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR), intersphincteric resection, or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Primary outcomes were perioperative data: operative time, blood loss, complications, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were pathological quality of the specimens and functional outcome 6 months after defunctioning ileostomy closure.ResultsAmong patients with cancer adjacent to the anal sphincter, 13 (25%) underwent APR, 14 (27%) patients were submitted to intersphincteric resection, and 25 (48%) patients were treated with the TaTME approach. Operative time was 240 (210–270 IQR) for APR, 212.5 (170–260 IQR) for intersphincteric resection, and 270 (240–330 IQR) for TaTME (p = 0.018). Perioperative morbidity was 31% for APR, 36% for intersphincteric resections, and 12% for the TaTME group (p = 0.181). Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 92% of specimens in the TaTME group, 93% in intersphincteric resections, and 78% in the APR group (p = 0.72). Median circumferential resection margin in APR was 6 mm (4–7 IQR), in intersphincteric resections 7.5 mm (2.5–10 IQR), and in the TaTME group 4 mm (2.8–8 IQR). All patients after intersphincteric resections developed major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Four patients in the TaTME group developed minor LARS, and 21 had major LARS.ConclusionSphincter-saving rectal resections are a feasible alternative to APR with good clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes. Intersphincteric resections and TaTME seem to be equal in terms of clinicopathological results. The functional outcome is yet to be investigated.Trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry (23-07-2018, ID TCTR20180724001).

Background There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. Methods We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Results Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. Conclusions BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak.

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.

Summary Background Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity. Objectives This study examined the safety of MBS in adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods This was a global, multicentre and observational cohort study of MBS performed between May 01, 2020, and October 10,2020, in 68 centres from 24 countries. Data collection included in‐hospital and 30‐day COVID‐19 and surgery‐specific morbidity/mortality. Results One hundred and seventy adolescent patients (mean age: 17.75 ± 1.30 years), mostly females (n = 122, 71.8%), underwent MBS during the study period. The mean pre‐operative weight and body mass index were 122.16 ± 15.92 kg and 43.7 ± 7.11 kg/m2, respectively. Although majority of patients had pre‐operative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) (n = 146; 85.9%), only 42.4% (n = 72) of the patients were asked to self‐isolate pre‐operatively. Two patients developed symptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection post‐operatively (1.2%). The overall complication rate was 5.3% (n = 9). There was no mortality in this cohort. Conclusions MBS in adolescents with obesity is safe during the COVID‐19 pandemic when performed within the context of local precautionary procedures (such as pre‐operative testing). The 30‐day morbidity rates were similar to those reported pre‐pandemic. These data will help facilitate the safe re‐introduction of MBS services for this group of patients.

Purpose Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Omentopexy during LSG is a novel variation of this well-established technique. There are no clear conclusions on indications for this procedure, safeness, and effects of such a method. We aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) with omentopexy (OP) and without omentopexy. Materials and Methods We searched the Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up-to June 2020. Full-text articles and conference abstracts were included for further analysis. This review follows the PRISMA guidelines. Results Of initial 66 records, only 4 studies (N = 1396 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that LSG with omentopexy had significantly lowered overall morbidity compared to LSG without omentopexy (RR = 0.38; 95% CI [0.15, 0.94]; p=0.04). Gastric leakage rate (RR = 0.17; 95% CI [0.04, 0.76]; p = 0.02) was also significantly lower in LSG with omentopexy. There were no significant differences between groups in length of hospital stay. Conclusions Our meta-analysis showed that LSG with omentopexy may be a feasible procedure for decreasing morbidity and gastric leak rate. However, despite promising results, the procedure needs to be researched more in randomized controlled studies to draw solid conclusions.