Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Although nowadays considered as feasible and effective surgery in terms of short- and long-term results and oncological radicality, laparoscopic right colectomy is performed by a small number of surgeons, and in the vast majority of cases, this technique was performed with an extracorporeal anastomosis. Current literature failed to solve the controversies between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy. Methods A multicenter case-controlled study has been designed, including 286 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) compared with 226 matched patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Results There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, BMI, and ASA score between the two groups. Surgical post history, tumor localization, and stage of disease according to AJCC/UICC TNM were similar too. Although similar oncologic radicality in term of number of lymph nodes harvested (25.7 ± 10.7 of IA group vs. 24.8 ± 8.7 of EA group; p  = 0.3), as well as similar operative time (166 ± 43.7 min. in IA group vs. 157.5 ± 67.2 min in EA group) have been registered, time to flatus was statistically lower after intracorporeal anastomosis (40.8 ± 24.3 h in TLRC group vs. 55.2 ± 19.2 h in LARC group; p  < 0.001) Laparoscopic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a lower rate of post-operative complications (OR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.44, 0.95, p  = 0.027). However, when stratifying according to clavien classification, the difference was consistently confirmed for less severe (class I and II) complications (OR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.42, 0.94, p  = 0.025), but not for class III, IV, and V complications (OR 1.015, 95 % CI 0.64, 1.6, p  = 0.95). Conclusion Our results are encouraging to consider the intracorporeally approach the better way to fashion the anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy. This study clearly provides the rationale for a randomized clinical trial, which would be useful to give definitive conclusion.

Recently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer. A systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer. 12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534). By pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.

Since its inception, robotic surgery has made incredible progress and has undergone significant development in an extremely short period of time [...].Since its inception, robotic surgery has made incredible progress and has undergone significant development in an extremely short period of time [...].

BackgroundFollowing the Food and Drug Administration approval, robot-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more acceptance among surgeons. One of the open issues about robotic surgery is the economic sustainability. The aim of our study is to evaluate the economic sustainability of robotic as compared to laparoscopic right colectomy for the Italian National Health System.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multicentre case-matched study including 94 patients for each group from four different Italian surgical departments. An economic evaluation gathered from a real-world data was performed to assess the sustainability of the robotic approach for right colectomy in the Italian National Health System. In particular, a differential cost analysis between the two procedures was performed.ResultsNo statistical differences were found between the two groups for postoperative outcomes. After a careful review of the literature on the cost assessment for the operative room, medical devices and hospital stay according with our data, we estimated the followings: (a) the mean operative room cost for robotic group was 2179 ± 476 € vs. 1376 ± 322 € for laparoscopic group; (b) the mean hospital stay cost for robotic group was 3143 ± 1435 € vs. 3292 ± 1123 € for laparoscopic group; and (c) the mean cost for instruments was 6280 € for robotic group vs. 1504 € for laparoscopic group. The total mean cost of robotic right colectomy was 11,576 ± 1915 € vs. 6196 ± 1444 € for laparoscopic right colectomy.ConclusionIn conclusion, to date, robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis does not provide any significant clinical advantages, which may justify the additional costs, as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. Further evolution of robotic technology and experience may lead to a reduction of costs, especially if the robotic platform is used in an appropriate healthcare setting.

Background Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery. Methods This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus. Results Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations. Conclusions Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Although intracorporeal anastomosis has been demonstrated to be safe and effective after right colectomy, limited data are available about its efficacy after left colectomy for colon cancer located in splenic flexure. A multi-institutional audit was designed, including 92 patients who underwent laparoscopic left colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) compared with 89 matched patients who underwent a laparoscopic left colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, BMI, and ASA score between the two groups. Post-surgical history and stage of disease according to AJCC/UICC TNM were also similar. IA and EA groups demonstrated similar oncologic radicality in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested (18.5 ± 9 vs. 17.5 ± 8.4; p = 0.48). Recovery after surgery was also better in patients who underwent IA, as confirmed by the shorter time to flatus in the IA group (2.6 ± 1.1 days vs. 3.4 ± 1.2 days; p < 0.001) and higher post-operative pain expressed in the mean VAS Scale in the EA group (1.7 ± 2.1 vs. 3.5 ± 1.6; p < 0.001). Laparoscopic left colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a lower rate of post-operative complications (OR 6.7, 95% CI 2.2–20; p = 0.001). However, when stratifying according to Clavien classification, the difference was consistently confirmed for less severe (class I and II) complications (OR 7.6, 95% CI 2.5–23, p = 0.001) but not for class III, IV, and V complications (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.1–16.9; p = 0.59). Our results were consistent to hypothesize that a complete laparoscopic approach could be considered a safe method to perform laparoscopic left colectomy with the advantage of a guaranteed faster recovery after surgery. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to obtain a more definitive conclusion.

No clear consensus on the need to perform an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) after laparoscopic right colectomy is currently available. One of the potential benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis may be a reduction in surgical stress. Herein, we evaluated the surgical stress response and the metabolic response in patients who underwent right colonic resection for colon cancer. Fifty-nine patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for right colon cancer were randomized to receive an intracorporeal or an extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Data including demographics (age, sex, BMI and ASA score), pathological (AJCC tumour stage and tumour localization) and surgical results were recorded. Moreover, to determine the levels of the inflammatory response, mediators, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin 1β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-10, and IL-13, were evaluated. Similarly, cortisol and insulin levels were evaluated as hormonal responses to surgical stress. We found that the proinflammatory mediator IL-6, CRP, TNF and IL-1β levels, were significantly reduced in IA compared to EA. Concurrently, an improved profile of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-10 and IL-13 was observed in the IA group. Relative to the hormone response to surgical stress, cortisol was increased in patients who underwent EA, while insulin was reduced in the EA group. Based on these results, s urgical stress and metabolic response to IA justify advocating the adoption of a totally laparoscopic approach when performing a right colectomy for cancer. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03422588).

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, with an incidence of 0.17%, but they represent 12% to 27% of all NETs and 20% of gastrointestinal NETs. Although rectal NETs are uncommon tumors, their incidence has increased over the past few years, and this is probably due to the improvement in detection rates made by advanced endoscopic procedures. The biological behavior of rectal NETs may be different: factors predicting the risk of metastases have been identified, such as size and grade of differentiation. The tendency for metastatic diffusion generally depends on the tumor size, muscular and lymphovascular infiltration, and histopathological differentiation. According to the current European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) guidelines, tumors that are smaller than 10 mm and well differentiated are thought to have a low risk of lymphovascular invasion, and they should be completely removed endoscopically. Rectal NETs larger than 20 mm have a higher risk of involvement of muscularis propria and high metastatic risk and are candidates for surgical resection. There is controversy over rectal NETs of intermediate size, 10–19 mm, where the metastatic risk is considered to be 10–15%: assessment of tumors endoscopically and by endoanal ultrasound should guide treatment in these cases towards endoscopic, transanal, or surgical resection.

Background Castleman’s disease is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder of unknown etiology that most commonly presents as a mediastinal nodal mass. It is exceptionally uncommon for Castleman’s disease to present in the mesentery and, only 53 cases have ever been described in the literature. Standard treatment for this lymphoproliferative disorder involving a single node is a complete “en bloc” surgical resection which has proven to be a curative approach in almost all cases without recurrence after 20 years of follow up. All 53 reported cases of mesenteric Castleman’s disease, except one, were treated with laparotomy. Case presentation We report on a case of mesenteric Castleman’s disease localized in the mesentery which is the second reported case if its kind and was treated by a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. Our female patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged in the 5 th post-operative day. No signs of recurrence were present as evidenced by physical examination and total body CT scan 24 months after the operation. We compare our case with the other reported cases in which Castleman’s disease presented as an isolated mass in the abdomen. Conclusion Although a rare disease, Unicentric Castleman’s disease should always be considered when a solid asymptomatic abdominal mass is occasionally presented. The laparoscopic approach (LA) allows for the achievement of better results than open surgery, including a reduction in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. In cases of masses of an uncertain nature, LA must be considered the last diagnostic tool and the first treatment one.

Background Although it is known that portomesenteric venous thrombosis (PMVT) is associated with total colectomy and proctocolectomy in young patients with inflammatory bowel disease, little is known about incidence and risk factors of PMVT among the elderly population undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer. Methods Data of elderly patients (> 70 years) undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer were retrospectively registered. The occurrence of PMVT was correlated with the patients’ characteristics and operative variables. Data collected included age, sex, obesity, ASA score, tumor degree, type of surgical resection, surgical approach (laparoscopic or open), and duration of surgery (from skin incision to the application of dressings). Results A total of 137 patients > 70 years who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer and developed an acute intraabdominal process with suggestive symptoms, needing a CT scan, were included. Three of these patients (2.1%) had portomesenteric venous thrombosis during the study period, which was proved with CT scan. There were no significant patients’ characteristics or operative variables between patients with or without the occurrence of PMVT after surgery. Of interest, only operative time was significantly higher in patients with PMVT after surgery (256 ± 40 vs 140 ± 41, p  < 0.001). Conclusions PMVT as a cause of abdominal pain after colorectal surgery for cancer in the elderly population is uncommon. An index of suspicion for PMVT in an elderly postoperative colorectal cancer patient with sudden onset of abdominal pain must be maintained.