Explore the vast range of titles available.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is a widely practiced treatment for primary (PH) and incisional (IH) hernias, with acceptable outcomes. Prevention of recurrence is crucial and still highly debated. Purpose of this study was to evaluate predictive factors of recurrence following LVHR with intraperitoneal onlay mesh with a single type of mesh for both PH and IH. A retrospective, multicentre study of data collected from patients who underwent LVHR for PH and IH with an intraperitoneal monofilament polypropylene mesh from January 2014 to December 2018 at 8 referral centers was conducted, and statistical analysis for risk factors of recurrence and post-operative outcomes was performed. A total of 1018 patients were collected, with 665 cases of IH (65.3%) and 353 of PH (34.7%). IH patients were older (p < 0.001), less frequently obese (p = 0.031), at higher ASA class (p < 0.001) and presented more frequently with large, swiss cheese type and border site defects (p < 0.001), compared to PH patients. Operative time and hospital stay were longer for IH (p < 0.001), but intraoperative and early post-operative complications and reinterventions were comparable. IH group presented at major risk of recurrence than PH (6.7% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001) and application of absorbable tacks resulted a significative predictive factor for recurrence increasing the risk by 2.94 (95% CI 1.18–7.31). LVHR with a light-weight polypropylene mesh has low intra- and post-operative complications and is appropriate for both IH and PH. Non absorbable tacks and mixed fixation system seem to be preferable to absorbable tacks alone.

The rapid adoption of robotic surgical systems across Europe has led to a critical gap in training and credentialing for gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons. Currently, there is no existing standardised curriculum to guide robotic training, assessment and certification for GI trainees. This manuscript describes the protocol to achieve a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery through a five-stage process. In Stage 1, a Steering Committee, consisting of international experts, trainees and educationalists, has been established to lead and coordinate the consensus development process. In Stage 2, a systematic review of existing multi-specialty robotic training curricula will be performed to inform the formulation of key position statements. In Stage 3, a comprehensive survey will be disseminated across Europe to capture the current state of robotic training and identify potential challenges and opportunities for improvement. In Stage 4, an international panel of GI surgeons, trainees, and robotic theatre staff will participate in a three-round Delphi process, seeking ≥ 70% agreement on crucial aspects of the training curriculum. Industry and patient representatives will be involved as external advisors throughout this process. In Stage 5, the robotic training curriculum for GI trainees will be finalised in a dedicated consensus meeting, culminating in the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. The study protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/br87d/).

Background: Almost 30% of patients with rectal cancer (RC) who submit to comprehensive treatment experience relapse. Surveillance plays a leading role in early detection. The landmark approach provides a more flexible and dynamic framework for survival prediction. Objective: This large retrospective study aims to develop a machine learning algorithm to profile the patient prognosis, especially the risk and the onset of RC relapse after curative resection. Methods: A cohort of 2450 RC patients were analyzed using landmark analysis. Model A applied a classical cause-specific Cox approach with a landmarking approach, while Model B implemented a landmarking-based RSF (random survival forest) competing risk algorithm. The two models were compared in terms of predictive and interpretative ability. A bootstrapped validation strategy was employed to validate the model’s performance and prevent overfitting. The best-performing hyperparameters were selected systematically, ensuring the model’s robustness within the landmark approach. The study assessed these factors’ importance and interactions using RSF and compared the predictive accuracy to that of the classical Cox model. Results: Model B outperformed Model A (mean C-index 0.95 vs. 0.78), capturing complex interactions and providing dynamic, individualized relapse predictions. Clinical factors influencing survival outcomes were identified across time with the landmark approach allowing for more accurate and timely predictions. Conclusions: The landmark approach offers an improvement over traditional methods in survival analysis. By accommodating time-dependent variables and the evolving nature of patient data, this approach provides a precise tool for profiling RC survival, thereby supporting more informed and dynamic clinical decision-making.

BackgroundIn literature, most of the comparative studies of robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) right colectomy are biased by the type of the anastomotic technique adopted. With this study, we aim to understand whether there is a role for robotics in performing right colectomies, comparing RRC versus LRC, both performed with intracorporeal anastomosis.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) with intracorporeal anastomosis in three Italian high-volume centers between February 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped according to the method of surgery: RRC or LRC.ResultsA total of 389 patients were included in the study (305 RRC vs. 84 LRC). Patients’ baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in RRC (250 min, IQR 209–305) group than LRC group (160 min, IQR 130–200) (p < 0.001). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (IQR 18–29) in RRC group while it was 19 (IQR 15–27) in LRC one (p = 0.028). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of time-to-first flatus, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Re-admission rate was significantly higher in LRC (n = 3, 3.6%) group than in RRC group (n = 1, 0.3%) (p = 0.033).ConclusionsIn conclusion, RRC and LRC are comparable in terms of functional postoperative outcomes and length of hospital stay. RRC requires longer operative time, but the number of lymph nodes harvested may be higher.

The rapid adoption of robotic surgical systems across Europe has led to a critical gap in training and credentialing for gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons. Currently, there is no existing standardised curriculum to guide robotic training, assessment and certification for GI trainees. This manuscript describes the protocol to achieve a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery through a five-stage process. In Stage 1, a Steering Committee, consisting of international experts, trainees and educationalists, has been established to lead and coordinate the consensus development process. In Stage 2, a systematic review of existing multi-specialty robotic training curricula will be performed to inform the formulation of key position statements. In Stage 3, a comprehensive survey will be disseminated across Europe to capture the current state of robotic training and identify potential challenges and opportunities for improvement. In Stage 4, an international panel of GI surgeons, trainees, and robotic theatre staff will participate in a three-round Delphi process, seeking [greater than or equal to] 70% agreement on crucial aspects of the training curriculum. Industry and patient representatives will be involved as external advisors throughout this process. In Stage 5, the robotic training curriculum for GI trainees will be finalised in a dedicated consensus meeting, culminating in the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document.

Background This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. Methods Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates. Results Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02–6.29; p < 0.0001). Conclusion Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

BackgroundEvidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes.MethodsThis nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed ≧12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length ≧ 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate.Results A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray’s tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray’s tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI − 4.7% to ∞). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference − 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI − 5.0% to ∞).ConclusionsAmong patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection.

BackgroundSeveral reports demonstrated a strong association between the level of adherence to the protocol and improved clinical outcomes after surgery. However, it is difficult to obtain full adherence to the protocol into clinical practice and has still not been identified the threshold beyond which improved functional results can be reached.MethodsThe ERCOLE (ERas and COLorectal Endoscopic surgery) study was as a cohort, prospective, multi-centre national study evaluating the association between adherence to ERAS items and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was to associate the percentage of ERAS adherence to functional recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study was to validate safety of the ERAS programme evaluating complications’ occurrence according to Clavien-Dindo classification and to evaluate the compliance of the Italian surgeons to each ERAS item.Results1138 patients were included. Adherence to the ERAS protocol was full only in 101 patients (8.9%), > 75% of the ERAS items in 736 (64.7%) and > 50% in 1127 (99%). Adherence to > 75% was associated with a better functional recovery with 90.2 ± 98.8 vs 95.9 ± 33.4 h (p = 0.003). At difference, full adherence to the ERAS components 91.7 ± 22.1 vs 92.2 ± 31.6 h (p = 0.8) was not associated with better recovery.ConclusionsOur results were encouraging to affirm that adherence to the ERAS program up to 75% could be considered satisfactory to get the goal. Our study could be considered a call to simplify the ERAS protocol facilitating its penetrance into clinical practice.

Primary and incisional ventral hernias are significant public health issues for their prevalence, variability of professional practices, and high costs associated with the treatment In 2019, the Board of Directors of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted the development of new guidelines on the laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias, according to the new national regulation. In 2022, the guideline was accepted by the government agency, and it was published, in Italian, on the SNLG website. Here, we report the adopted methodology and the guideline’s recommendations, as established in its diffusion policy. This guideline is produced according to the methodology indicated by the SNGL and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Fifteen recommendations were produced as a result of 4 PICO questions. The level of recommendation was conditional for 12 of them and conditional to moderate for one. This guideline's strengths include relying on an extensive systematic review of the literature and applying a rigorous GRADE method. It also has several limitations. The literature on the topic is continuously and rapidly evolving; our results are based on findings that need constant re-appraisal. It is focused only on minimally invasive techniques and cannot consider broader issues (e.g., diagnostics, indication for surgery, pre-habilitation).

Background Emergency surgery represents a unique context. Trauma teams are often multidisciplinary and need to operate under extreme stress and time constraints, sometimes with no awareness of the trauma’s causes or the patient’s personal and clinical information. In this perspective, the dynamics of how trauma teams function is fundamental to ensuring the best performance and outcomes. Methods An online survey was conducted among the World Society of Emergency Surgery members in early 2021. 402 fully filled questionnaires on the topics of knowledge translation dynamics and tools, non-technical skills, and difficulties in teamwork were collected. Data were analyzed using the software R, and reported following the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Results Findings highlight how several surgeons are still unsure about the meaning and potential of knowledge translation and its mechanisms. Tools like training, clinical guidelines, and non-technical skills are recognized and used in clinical practice. Others, like patients’ and stakeholders’ engagement, are hardly implemented, despite their increasing importance in the modern healthcare scenario. Several difficulties in working as a team are described, including the lack of time, communication, training, trust, and ego. Discussion Scientific societies should take the lead in offering training and support about the abovementioned topics. Dedicated educational initiatives, practical cases and experiences, workshops and symposia may allow mitigating the difficulties highlighted by the survey’s participants, boosting the performance of emergency teams. Additional investigation of the survey results and its characteristics may lead to more further specific suggestions and potential solutions.