1Moscow Clinical Research and Practical Center, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 2A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 3Kazan State Medical University, Kazan; 4Kazan (Volga) Federal University, Kazan; 5Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Khabarovsk; 6Morozov City Children’s Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 7I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 8Siberian State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tomsk; 9M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow; 10Maimonides State Classical Academy, Moscow; 11V.I. Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, Saratov; 12I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 13S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg; 14Surgut State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Surgut; 15City Clinical Hospital Five, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 16Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Nizhny Novgorod; 17Territorial Clinical Hospital Two, Ministry of Health of the Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar; 18Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 19Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Rostov-on-Don; 20Omsk Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Omsk; 21Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 22Novosibirsk State Medical University, Novosibirsk; 23Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Stavropol; 24Kemerovo State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kemerovo; 25N.I. Pirogov Russian Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 26A.M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 27Federal Research Center, Krasnoyarsk Research Center, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Research Institute of Medical Problems of the North, Krasnoyarsk; 28S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 29Tver State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tver The Russian consensus (a consensus document) on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been prepared on the initiative of the Russian «Pancreatic Club» under the Delphi system. Its aim was to identify and consolidate the opinions of Russian experts on the most topical issues of the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. The interdisciplinary approach involved the participation of leading gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pediatricians.

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short‐term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non‐transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed‐effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

Pancreatology Club Professional Medical Community, 1A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Research and Practical Center, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 2A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 3Kazan State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kazan; 4Kazan (Volga) Federal University, Kazan; 5Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Khabarovsk; 6Morozov City Children's Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 7I.I. Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 8Siberian State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tomsk; 9M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow; 10Maimonides State Classical Academy, Moscow; 11V.I. Razumovsky State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saratov; 12I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 13S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Ministry of Defense of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 14Surgut State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Surgut; 15City Clinical Hospital Five, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 16Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia, Nizhny Novgorod; 17Territorial Clinical Hospital Two, Ministry of Health of the Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar; 18Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Saint Petersburg; 19Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Rostov-on-Don; 20Omsk Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Omsk; 21Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 22Novosibirsk State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Novosibirsk; 23Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Stavropol; 24Kemerovo State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Kemerovo; 25N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow; 26A.M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Russian Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, Saint Petersburg; 27Research Institute for Medical Problems of the North, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk; 28S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital, Moscow Healthcare Department, Moscow; 29Tver State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Tver The Russian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis has been prepared on the initiative of the Russian Pancreatology Club to clarify and consolidate the opinions of Russian specialists (gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pediatricians) on the most significant problems of diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. This article continues a series of publications explaining the most significant interdisciplinary consensus statements and deals with enzyme replacement therapy.

The Russian consensus on exo - and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency after surgical treatment was prepared on the initiative of the Russian "Pancreatic Club" on the Delphi method. His goal was to clarify and consolidate the opinions of specialists on the most relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment of exo - and endocrine insufficiency after surgical interventions on the pancreas. An interdisciplinary approach is provided by the participation of leading gastroenterologists and surgeons.

Aim. To analyze management of severe acute destructive pancreatitis and to determine the main tactical, anatomical and pathophysiological factors determining risks of adverse outcomes. Material and methods. 3581 patients with acute pancreatitis were enrolled. Retrospectively, 239 patients were assigned to severe pancreatic necrosis; invasive surgical techniques were applied in 210 cases. Twenty-nine patients with pancreatic necrosis underwent endoscopic papillosphincterotomy with main pancreatic duct stenting. Results. Overall mortality in patients with severe pancreatic necrosis was 32.3%, in case of minimally invasive techniques – 29.6%, conventional approach – 34.1%. There were similar outcomes regardless surgical technique in patients with pancreatic necrosis (p > 0.05), although introduction of main statements of national recommendations for treatment of pancreatic necrosis (regardless severity) reduced mortality from 25.4% to 9.5% (p < 0.001). Advanced parapancreatitis was accompanied by mortality near 36.5%. Stenting of main pancreatic duct was followed by death of 3 out of 29 patients with pancreatic necrosis (10.3%). Conclusion. Indications and choice of surgical approach according to national recommendations are not accompanied by improved postoperative mortality in patients with severe pancreatic necrosis and multiple organ failure. However, according to analysis on the whole, there is reduced postoperative mortality regardless severity of disease if these recommendations are sustained. Widespread involvement of retroperitoneal structures is adverse prognostic factor. Early endoscopic intraduodenal drainage in effective to prevent parapancreatic tissues.

Introduction The mainstay of management for locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, a complete response may be detected clinically and radiologically (cCR) prior to surgery or pathologically after surgery (pCR). We aim to report the overall complete pathological response (pCR) rate and the reliability of detecting a cCR by conventional pre‐operative imaging. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients treated by elective rectal resection were included. A pCR was defined as a ypT0 N0 EMVI negative primary tumour; a partial response represented any regression from baseline staging following chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. The secondary endpoint was agreement between post‐treatment MRI restaging (yMRI) and final pathological staging. Results Of 2572 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 277 participating centres across 44 countries, 673 (26.2%) underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. The pCR rate was 10.3% (67/649), with a partial response in 35.9% (233/649) patients. Comparison of AJCC stage determined by post‐treatment yMRI with final pathology showed understaging in 13% (55/429) and overstaging in 34% (148/429). Agreement between yMRI and final pathology for T‐stage, N‐stage, or AJCC status were each graded as ‘fair’ only (n = 429, Kappa 0.25, 0.26 and 0.35 respectively). Conclusion The reported pCR rate of 10% highlights the potential for non‐operative management in selected cases. The limited strength of agreement between basic conventional post‐chemoradiotherapy imaging assessment techniques and pathology suggest alternative markers of response should be considered, in the context of controlled clinical trials.

Background Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. Methods Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30‐day major complication rate, defined as Clavien‐Dindo grade III‐V. Results Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27–2.11, P < 0.001). Conclusions Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection.

Time of normalization of body temperature and restore the function of the gastrointestinal tract, the duration of hospital treatment, the need for antibiotic prophylaxis and antibiotic therapy, the incidence of postoperative complications (in general and SSI). It was found a statistically significant effect of the application of the suture with triclosan to reduce the incidence of SSI. The economic effect of using SMT is only by reducing the average duration of hospital treatment amounted to 1 723 238 rubles in one year.