Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundA computer vision (CV) platform named EndoDigest was recently developed to facilitate the use of surgical videos. Specifically, EndoDigest automatically provides short video clips to effectively document the critical view of safety (CVS) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of the present study is to validate EndoDigest on a multicentric dataset of LC videos.MethodsLC videos from 4 centers were manually annotated with the time of the cystic duct division and an assessment of CVS criteria. Incomplete recordings, bailout procedures and procedures with an intraoperative cholangiogram were excluded. EndoDigest leveraged predictions of deep learning models for workflow analysis in a rule-based inference system designed to estimate the time of the cystic duct division. Performance was assessed by computing the error in estimating the manually annotated time of the cystic duct division. To provide concise video documentation of CVS, EndoDigest extracted video clips showing the 2 min preceding and the 30 s following the predicted cystic duct division. The relevance of the documentation was evaluated by assessing CVS in automatically extracted 2.5-min-long video clips.Results144 of the 174 LC videos from 4 centers were analyzed. EndoDigest located the time of the cystic duct division with a mean error of 124.0 ± 270.6 s despite the use of fluorescent cholangiography in 27 procedures and great variations in surgical workflows across centers. The surgical evaluation found that 108 (75.0%) of the automatically extracted short video clips documented CVS effectively.ConclusionsEndoDigest was robust enough to reliably locate the time of the cystic duct division and efficiently video document CVS despite the highly variable workflows. Training specifically on data from each center could improve results; however, this multicentric validation shows the potential for clinical translation of this surgical data science tool to efficiently document surgical safety.

BackgroundGroin hernia management has a significant worldwide diversity with multiple surgical techniques and variable outcomes. The International guidelines for groin hernia management serve to help in groin hernia management, but the acceptance among general surgeons remains unknown. The aim of our study was to gauge the degree of agreement with the guidelines among health care professionals worldwide.MethodsForty-six key statements and recommendations of the International guidelines for groin hernia management were selected and presented at plenary consensus conferences at four international congresses in Europe, the America’s and Asia. Participants could cast their votes through live voting. Additionally, a web survey was sent out to all society members allowing online voting after each congress. Consensus was defined as > 70% agreement among all participants.ResultsIn total 822 surgeons cast their vote on the key statements and recommendations during the four plenary consensus meetings or via the web survey. Consensus was reached on 34 out of 39 (87%) recommendations, and on six out of seven (86%) statements. No consensus was reached on the use of light versus heavy-weight meshes (69%), superior cost-effectiveness of day-case laparo-endoscopic repair (69%), omitting prophylactic antibiotics in hernia repair, general or local versus regional anesthesia in elderly patients (55%) and re-operation in case of immediate postoperative pain (59%).ConclusionGlobally, there is 87% consensus regarding the diagnosis and management of groin hernias. This provides a solid basis for standardizing the care path of patients with groin hernias.

With the development of newer meshes and approaches to hernia repair, it is currently difficult to evaluate their performances while considering the patients’ perspective. The aim of the study was to assess the clinical outcomes and quality of life consequences of abdominal hernia repairs performed in Italy using Phasix and Phasix ST meshes through the analysis of real-world data to support the choice of new generation biosynthetic meshes. An observational, prospective, multicentre study was conducted in 10 Italian clinical centres from May 2015 to February 2018 and in 15 Italian clinical centres from March 2018 to May 2019. The evaluation focused on patients with VHWG grade II–III who underwent primary ventral hernia repair or incisional hernia intervention with a follow-up of at least 18 months. Primary endpoints included complications’ rates, and secondary outcomes focused on patient quality of life as measured by the EuroQol questionnaire. Seventy-five patients were analysed. The main complications were: 1.3% infected mesh removal, 4.0% superficial infection requiring procedural intervention, 0% deep/organ infection, 8.0% recurrence, 5.3% reintervention, and 6.7% drained seroma. The mean quality of life utility values ranged from 0.768 (baseline) to 0.967 (36 months). To date, Phasix meshes have proven to be suitable prostheses in preventing recurrence, with promising outcomes in terms of early and late complications and in improving patient quality of life.

IntroductionThere has been an increasing interest for the laparoscopic treatment of early gastric cancer, especially among Eastern surgeons. However, the oncological effectiveness of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy (LG) for Advanced Gastric Cancer (AGC) remains a subject of debate, especially in Western countries where limited reports have been published. The aim of this paper is to retrospectively analyze short- and long-term results of LG for AGC in a real-life Western practice.Materials and methodsAll consecutive cases of LG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC performed from January 2005 to December 2019 at seven different surgical departments were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was diseases-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), number of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative morbidity and conversion rate.ResultsA total of 366 patients with stage II and III AGC underwent either total or subtotal LG. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 25 ± 14. The mean hospital stay was 13 ± 10 days and overall postoperative morbidity rate 27.32%, with severe complications (grade ≥ III) accounting for 9.29%. The median follow-up was 36 ± 16 months during which 90 deaths occurred, all due to disease progression. The DFS and OS probability was equal to 0.85 (95% CI 0.81–0.89) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.97) at 1 year, 0.62 (95% CI 0.55–0.69) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.56–0.71) at 5 years, respectively.ConclusionOur study has led us to conclude that LG for AGC is feasible and safe in the general practice of Western institutions when performed by trained surgeons.

BackgroundSplenic flexure cancer (SFC), identified as tumors raised in the distal transverse colon and proximal descending colon, accounts for 2 to 5% of all surgically treated colorectal cancers. Despite the fact that the laparoscopic approach has become the gold standard for many colorectal procedures, it has never been extensively investigated in SFC due to lack of an agreed consensus on the appropriate operative procedure. The aim of this multicenter retrospective study is to evaluate the oncologic value of laparoscopic segmental resection with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for cancer located in the splenic flexure.MethodsAll data of consecutive patients who had undergone laparoscopic resection with CME for SFC from January 2005 to December 2017 at five different tertiary centers were retrospectively analyzed. The Kaplan–Meier (KM) test was used to assess the overall survival (OS) and the disease-free survival (DFS) rates after surgery. Univariate Cox regression was used to explore the association between OS and other independent factors.ResultsRecurrence was observed in 13 (11.6%) patients and a significant association between disease stage and recurrence (P < 0.001) was found with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the recurrence group (46.1% vs. 7.1%). During a median follow-up of 43 months (range 12–149), 13 deaths occurred, all of them due to disease progression. KM curves for all stages showed an estimated survival rate of 51% at 148 months.ConclusionLaparoscopic segmental resection with CME appears to be an oncologically safe and effective procedure for treatment of SFC and may be considered as a standard surgical method for elective management of the disease. In the future, routine lymph node mapping could be used to confirm this hypothesis.

Background Laparoscopy has increasingly become the standard of care for patients who undergo colorectal surgery for both benign and malignant diseases. This growing experience has also resulted in more reports of postoperative complications from the minimally invasive approach to primary colorectal resection. Small bowel obstruction from internal hernias and pre-sacral adhesions is an uncommon but not negligible complication. However, there is little literature specific to this topic with recommendations for different methods to prevent it. We report our original technique of closing the mesenteric defect and covering the pre-sacral fascia by using fibrin sealant to prevent this complication. Methods From January 2005 to December 2014, a total of 1079 patients underwent elective laparoscopic left colorectal resection (left hemicolectomy or anterior rectal resection) in our department. In the first 298 procedures, the mesenteric defect was left open, while in the following 781 procedures, it was closed using fibrin sealant with the aim of preventing postoperative small bowel obstruction. Results Among the first 298 patients, three (1%) required reoperation for small bowel obstruction due to internal hernia (0.33%) or critical pre-sacral adhesions (0.66%). These complications did not occur in the subsequent series in which all 781 patients were treated with fibrin sealant prophylactic closure of the mesenteric defect. Conclusion In our experience, fibrin sealant closure of the mesenteric defect has demonstrated to be safe and effective in preventing postoperative small bowel obstruction that remains a complication both in open and in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries.

Following the spread of the infection from the new SARS-CoV2 coronavirus in March 2020, several surgical societies have released their recommendations to manage the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the daily clinical practice. The recommendations on emergency surgery have fueled a debate among surgeons on an international level. We maintain that laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis, even in the COVID-19 era. Moreover, since laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not more likely to spread the COVID-19 infection than open cholecystectomy, it must be organized in such a way as to be carried out safely even in the present situation, to guarantee the patient with the best outcomes that minimally invasive surgery has shown to have.

Background The Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues. Methods The scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. “The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence”) was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group. Results and Conclusions The availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

Background Laparoscopy has increasingly become the standard of care for patients who undergo colorectal surgery for both benign and malignant disease. On the basis of this growing experience, there is now an expanded role for laparoscopic approach to postoperative complications after primary colorectal resection. However, there is little literature specific to this topic. We report a ten-year experience with laparoscopic treatment of early complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods From January 2003 to December 2012, a total of 1,292 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery in our department. One hundred and two (7.9 %) patients required reoperation for a postoperative complication. Laparoscopy has been also adopted as the preferred procedure for management of postoperative complications. A retrospective review of 84 patients who had relaparoscopy (RL) for postoperative complications, including peritonitis, ureteral injury, bowel obstruction, and bleeding, was performed. Results Reoperation was carried out laparoscopically in 79 (94.0 %) patients. Five (6.0 %) conversions were necessary because of massive colonic ischemia, generalized fecal peritonitis, and lack of working space. The most common finding at RL was anastomotic leakage (57.1 %) that was managed by peritoneal lavage and ileostomy in 91.7 % of cases. Six percent of patients had negative RL. Overall morbidity rate was 25.0 %. Five patients required additional surgery: four (5.1 %) after RL and one after a converted procedure. There were five (6.0 %) deaths from septic shock, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism. Conclusions Laparoscopy is a safe and effective tool for management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In this setting, RL represents the first step of re-exploration and treatment, with no delay to conversion to open procedure even in skilled laparoscopic hands.

BackgroundAccording to many Societies’ guidelines, patients presenting with clinical T4 colorectal cancer should conventionally be approached by a laparotomy. Results of emerging series are questioning this attitude.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed the oncologic outcomes of 147 patients operated on between June 2008 and September 2015 for histologically proven pT4 colon cancers. All patients were treated with curative intent, either by a laparoscopic or open “en bloc” resection.ResultsMedian operative time, blood loss and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative surgical complication rate and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups ( p = 0.09 and p = 0.99, respectively). R1 resection rate and lymph nodes harvest, as well, did not remarkably differ when comparing the two groups. In the laparoscopic group, conversion rate was 19%. Long-term outcomes were not affected in patients who had undergone conversion. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (44.6% and 40.3% vs. 39.4% and 38.9%). Locally advanced stages (IIIB–IIIC) and R1 resections were detected as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.ConclusionLaparoscopic approach might be safe and acceptable for locally advanced colon cancer and does not jeopardize the oncologic results. Conversion to open surgery should be a part of a strategy as it does not seem to adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. We consider laparoscopy, in expert hands, the last diagnostic tool and the first therapeutic approach for well-selected locally advanced colon cancers. Larger prospective studies are needed to widely assess this issue.