Risk factors for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and prolonged length of stay after laparoscopic adrenalectomy by transperitoneal lateral approach: a retrospective cohort study of 547 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is the gold standard for the resection of most adrenal lesions. A precise delineation of factors influencing its outcomes is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and prolonged length of stay (LOS) after LA. METHODS: Patients who underwent LA from 1999 to 2021 in a single-academic-institution were included. Patient and disease-specific data, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications according to Dindo-Clavien (DC) scale, and LOS were recorded. Predictive factors of complications and prolonged LOS were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 530 patients who underwent 547 LA. Intraoperative complications occurred in 33 patients (6.0%). Postoperative complications ≥  DC grade 2 occurred in 73 patients (13.35%); severe postoperative complications ≥ DC grade 3 in 14 patients (2.56%). Postoperative complications were positively associated with age ≥ 72 (OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.02-1.29]), intraoperative complications (OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.14-1.63]), and negatively associated with non functional adenomas (OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.7-0.99]), and right adrenalectomy (OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.86-0.97]). Severe postoperative complications were positively associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, OR 1.08 [95% CI 1.00-1.17]), and negatively associated with right adrenalectomy (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.92-0.99]). Prolonged LOS was associated with age ≥ 72 (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.05-1.41]), and COPD (OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.01-1.44]). CONCLUSIONS: LA remains safe when performed by surgeons with expertise. Right adrenalectomy resulted in less postoperative overall and severe complications. The risk-benefit equation should be carefully assessed before left LA in older patients with COPD.

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect more than half the patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy results in lower morbidity than open esophagectomy is unclear. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients 18 to 75 years of age with resectable cancer of the middle or lower third of the esophagus. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo transthoracic open esophagectomy (open procedure) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (hybrid procedure). Surgical quality assurance was implemented by the credentialing of surgeons, standardization of technique, and monitoring of performance. Hybrid surgery comprised a two-field abdominal-thoracic operation (also called an Ivor-Lewis procedure) with laparoscopic gastric mobilization and open right thoracotomy. The primary end point was intraoperative or postoperative complication of grade II or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (indicating major complication leading to intervention) within 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: From October 2009 through April 2012, we randomly assigned 103 patients to the hybrid-procedure group and 104 to the open-procedure group. A total of 312 serious adverse events were recorded in 110 patients. A total of 37 patients (36%) in the hybrid-procedure group had a major intraoperative or postoperative complication, as compared with 67 (64%) in the open-procedure group (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.55; P<0.001). A total of 18 of 102 patients (18%) in the hybrid-procedure group had a major pulmonary complication, as compared with 31 of 103 (30%) in the open-procedure group. At 3 years, overall survival was 67% (95% CI, 57 to 75) in the hybrid-procedure group, as compared with 55% (95% CI, 45 to 64) in the open-procedure group; disease-free survival was 57% (95% CI, 47 to 66) and 48% (95% CI, 38 to 57), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in a lower incidence of intraoperative and postoperative major complications, specifically pulmonary complications, than open esophagectomy, without compromising overall and disease-free survival over a period of 3 years. (Funded by the French National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00937456 .).

Laparoscopic fundoplication for para-oesophageal hernia repair improves respiratory function in patients with dyspnoea: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnoea in patients with a para-oesophageal hernia (PEH) occurs in 7% to 32% of cases and is very disabling, especially in elderly patients, and its origin is not well defined. The present study aims to assess the impact of PEH repair on dyspnoea and respiratory function. METHODS: From January 2019 to May 2021, all consecutive patients scheduled for PEH repair presenting with a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) score ≥ 2 for dyspnoea were included. Before and 2 months after surgery, dyspnoea was assessed by both the dyspnoea visual analogue scale (DVAS) and the mMRC scale, as well as pulmonary function tests (PFTs) by plethysmography. RESULTS: All 43 patients that were included had pre- and postoperative dyspnoea assessments and PFTs. Median age was 70 years (range 63-73.5 years), 37 (86%) participants were women, median percentage of the intrathoracic stomach was 59.9% (range 44.2-83.0%), and median length of hospital stay was 3 days (range 3-4 days). After surgery, the DVAS decreased statistically significant (5.6 [4.7-6.7] vs. 3.0 [2.3-4.4], p < 0.001), and 37 (86%) patients had a clinically significant decrease in mMRC score. Absolute forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), total lung capacity, and forced vital capacity also statistically significantly increased after surgery by an average of 11.2% (SD 17.9), 5.0% (SD 13.9), and 10.7% (SD 14.6), respectively. Furthermore, from the subgroup analysis, it was identified that patients with a lower preoperative FEV1 were more likely to have improvement in it after surgery. No correlation was found between improvement in dyspnoea and FEV1. There was no correlation between the percentage of intrathoracic stomach and dyspnoea or improvement in PFT parameters. CONCLUSION: PEH repair improves dyspnoea and FEV1 in a statistically significant manner in a population of patients presenting with dyspnoea. Patients with a low preoperative FEV1 are more likely to have improvement in it after surgery.

Health-related Quality of Life Following Hybrid Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer, Analysis of a Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Phase III Controlled Trial: The MIRO Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been shown to reduce major postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following HMIE and OE within a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial at 13 study centers between 2009 and 2012. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with resectable cancers of the middle or lower third of the esophagus were randomized to undergo either transthoracic OE or HMIE. Patients were followed-up every 6 months for 3 years postoperatively and global health assessed with EORTC-QLQC30 and esophageal symptoms assessed with EORTC-OES18. RESULTS: The short-term reduction in global HRQOL at 30 days specifically role functioning [-33.33 (HMIE) vs -46.3 (OE); P = 0.0407] and social functioning [-16.88 (HMIE) vs -35.74 (OE); P = 0.0003] was less substantial in the HMIE group. At 2 years, social functioning had improved following HMIE to beyond baseline (+5.37) but remained reduced in the OE group (-8.33) (P = 0.0303). At 2 years, increases in pain were similarly reduced in the HMIE compared with the OE group [+6.94 (HMIE) vs +14.05 (OE); P = 0.018]. Postoperative complications in multivariate analysis were associated with role functioning, pain, and dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy has substantial effects upon short-term HRQOL. These effects for some specific parameters are, however, reduced with HMIE, with persistent differences up to 2 years, and maybe mediated by a reduction in postoperative complications.

Salvage Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: How to Improve Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Locoregional recurrence rates after definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) are high. Salvage surgery (SALV) is considered the best treatment option in case of persistent or recurrent disease for operable patients, but SALV has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to identify factors linked to outcomes after SALV to better select candidates and to optimize perioperative care. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed data from 308 consecutive SALV patients from a large multicenter European cohort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with in-hospital postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leakage (AL), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The in-hospital postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 8.4 and 34.7%, respectively. Squamous cell histology (p = 0.040) and radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (p = 0.047) were independently associated with major morbidity. The AL rate was 12.7%, and cervical anastomosis was independently associated with AL (p = 0.002). OS at 5 years was 34.0%. Radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (p = 0.003), occurrence of postoperative complications (p = 0.006), ypTNM stage 3 (p = 0.019), and positive surgical margins (p < 0.001) were linked to poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: SALV is a valuable option for patients with persistent or recurrent disease after dCRT and offers long-term survival. Factors such as radiation dose and anastomosis location identified here will help to optimize outcomes after SALV, which may be considered a standard treatment in the EC therapeutic armamentarium.

Survival Benefit of Neoadjuvant Treatment in Clinical T3N0M0 Esophageal Cancer: Results From a Retrospective Multicenter European Study.

BACKGROUND: Based on current guidelines, clinical T3N0M0 esophageal tumors may or may not receive neoadjuvant treatment, according to their perception as locally advanced (cT3) or early-stage tumors (stage II). The study aim was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant treatment upon survival for cT3N0M0 esophageal cancer patients, with subgroup analyses by histological type (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma) and type of neoadjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs radiochemotherapy). METHODS: Data from patients operated on for esophageal cancer in 30 European centers were collected. Among the 382 of 2944 patients with clinical T3N0M0 stage at initial diagnosis (13.0%), we compared those treated with primary surgery (S, n = 193) versus with neoadjuvant treatment plus surgery (NS, n = 189). RESULTS: The S and NS groups were similar regarding their demographic and surgical characteristics. In-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between groups. Patients were found to be pN+ in 64.2% versus 42.9% in the S and NS groups respectively (P < 0.001), pN2/N3 in 35.2% versus 21.2% (P < 0.001), stage 0 in 0% versus 16.4% (P < 0.001), and R0 in 81.3% versus 89.4% of cases (P = 0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals were significantly better in the NS group, 38.4 versus 27.9 months (P = 0.007) and 31.6 versus 27.5 months (P = 0.040), respectively, and this difference remained for both histological types. Radiotherapy did not offer a benefit compared with chemotherapy alone (P = 0.687). In multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant treatment was an independent favorable prognostic factor (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99, P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment offers a significant survival benefit for clinical T3N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Discrepancy Between Clinical and Pathologic Nodal Status of Esophageal Cancer and Impact on Prognosis and Therapeutic Strategy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of discrepancies between clinical (c) and pathologic (p) stages of esophageal cancer remains a poorly understood issue. This study aimed to compare the prognosis of patient groups treated by primary surgery including clinical N0/pathologic N0 (cN0pN0), clinical N0/pathologic N+ (cN0pN+), clinical N+/pathologic N0 (cN+pN0), and clinical N+/pathologic N+ (cN+pN+). METHODS: Data were collected from 30 European centers during the years 2000 to 2010. Among 2944 recruited patients, 1554 patients receiving primary surgery met the inclusion criteria including 613 cN0pN0, 403 cN0pN+, 220 cN+pN0, and 318 cN+pN+ patients. Analyses with adjustment of the propensity score were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Clinical T stages 3 and 4 were increased in cN+pN+ (73.0%), cN0pN+ (49.6%), and cN+pN0 (51.8%) compared with cN0pN0 (32.8%). Compared with cN0pN0, cN+pN+ and cN0pN+ showed an increase in the proportion of adenocarcinoma histologic subtype, poor tumor differentiation, pathologic T3 and T4 stages, and R1/2 resection margin. Adjusted 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.57-3.78; P < 0.001) and event-free survival (HR 2.87; 95% CI 2.39-3.45; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in cN0pN+ compared with cN0pN0. No significant differences in 5-year overall survival or event-free survival between cN0pN+ and cN+pN+ were observed. Regression analysis identified an association of distal tumor location, advanced clinical T stage, and poor tumor differentiation with pN+ disease. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study showed that cN0pN+ has a prognosis similar to that of cN+pN+ and worse than that of cN0pN0. Patients with clinical N0 disease but risk factors for pathologic N+ disease may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy before surgery.

The Impact of Severe Anastomotic Leak on Long-term Survival and Cancer Recurrence After Surgical Resection for Esophageal Malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to the determine impact of severe esophageal anastomotic leak (SEAL) upon long-term survival and locoregional cancer recurrence. BACKGROUND: The impact of SEAL upon long-term survival after esophageal resection remains inconclusive with a number of studies demonstrating conflicting results. METHODS: A multicenter database for the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer collected data from 30 university hospitals (2000-2010). SEAL was defined as a Clavien-Dindo III or IV leak. Patients with SEAL were compared with those without in terms of demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical technique, morbidity, survival, and recurrence. RESULTS: From a database of 2944 operated on for esophageal cancer between 2000 and 2010, 209 patients who died within 90 days of surgery and 296 patients with a R1/R2 resection were excluded, leaving 2439 included in the final analysis; 208 (8.5%) developed a SEAL and significant independent association was observed with low hospital procedural volume, cervical anastomosis, tumoral stage III/IV, and pulmonary and cardiovascular complications. SEAL was associated with a significant reduction in median overall (35.8 vs 54.8 months; P = 0.002) and disease-free (34 vs 47.9 months; P = 0.005) survivals. After adjustment of confounding factors, SEAL was associated with a 28% greater likelihood of death [hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-1.59; P = 0.022], as well as greater overall (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.15-1.73; P = 0.011), locoregional (OR = 1.56; 95% CI: 1.05-2.24; P = 0.030), and mixed (OR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.20-2.71; P = 0.014) recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study provides strong evidence that SEAL adversely impacts cancer prognosis. The mechanism through which SEAL increases local recurrence is an important area for future research.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves histological results compared with perioperative chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment is considered the standard treatment for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. This study compared the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and perioperative chemotherapy (PCT) based on postoperative results and long-term survival. METHODS: All patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus were treated with a single protocol of neoadjuvant CRT (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] with 45 Gy of concurrent radiotherapy) or with a single protocol of PCT (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-FU). The responses to CRT and PCT were evaluated by considering the rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) and radical resection (R0). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence were evaluated according to the neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients underwent CRT or PCT followed by esophagectomy; 61 patients underwent PCT, and 55 patients underwent CRT. R0 was achieved in 98 patients (84.5 %) and was more frequent in the CRT group (94.6 vs. 75.4 %; p = 0.010). pCR was observed in 13 patients (11.2 %) and was more frequent in the CRT group (20 vs. 3.3 %; p = 0.011). OS was comparable between the CRT and PCT groups (41 vs. 45 months; p = 0.284). DFS was comparable between the CRT and PCT groups (21 vs. 36 months; p = 0.522). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, better histological results were observed in patients who had been treated with CRT, although similar survival rates were observed for patients treated with either CRT or PCT. Further study is necessary to select patients who will benefit most from CRT or PCT.

Predictive Factors of Recurrence in Patients with Pathological Complete Response After Esophagectomy Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Minimal data have previously emerged from studies regarding the factors associated with recurrence in patients with ypT0N0M0 status. The purpose of the study was to predict survival and recurrence in patients with pathological complete response (pCR) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery for esophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: Among 2944 consecutive patients with EC operations in 30 centers between 2000 and 2010, patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery who achieved pCR (n = 191) were analyzed. The factors associated with survival and recurrence were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 593 patients who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy, pCR was observed in 191 patients (32.2 %). Recurrence occurred in 56 (29.3 %) patients. The median time to recurrence was 12 months. The factors associated with recurrence were postoperative complications grade 3-4 [odds ratio (OR): 2.100; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.008-4.366; p = 0.048) and adenocarcinoma histologic subtype (OR 2.008; 95 % CI 0.1.06-0.3.80; p = 0.032). The median overall survival was 63 months (95 % CI 39.3-87.1), and the median disease-free survival was 48 months (95 % CI 18.3-77.4). Age (>65 years) [hazard ratio (HR): 2.166; 95 % CI 1.170-4.010; p = 0.014), postoperative complications grades 3-4 [HR 2.099; 95 % CI 1.137-3.878; p = 0.018], and radiation dose (<40 Gy) (HR 0.361; 95 % CI 0.159-0.820; p = 0.015) were identified as factors associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive follow-up may be beneficial for patients with EC who achieve pCR and who develop major postoperative complications or the adenocarcinoma histologic subtype.

Impact of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Patients with Lymph Node-Positive Esophageal Cancer who are primarily Treated with Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Whereas the optimal therapeutic strategy in node positive esophageal cancer primarily treated by surgery remains unknown, the study was designed to evaluate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in such population. METHODS: Among 2944 consecutive patients operated on for esophageal cancer between 2000 and 2010 in 30 European centers, patients with lymph node metastasis treated by adjuvant treatment (n = 178) were compared to patients who did not received adjuvant treatment (n = 378). Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: After matching, patients were comparable between the two groups. When comparing adjuvant treatment and nonadjuvant treatment groups, there was no significant differences in 3-year overall (40.9 vs. 35.8 %, P = 0.560) and disease-free (33.9 vs. 28.5 %, P = 0.190) survivals. Locoregional recurrence was lower in the adjuvant treatment group (14.4 vs. 30.9 %, P = 0.012). In the adjuvant treatment group, 94 patients received chemotherapy and 84 chemoradiotherapy, without significant survival benefit over chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (P = 0.280). Predictive factors of overall survival were age ≥60 years, ASA III-IV score, and pN+ classification. No survival benefit was observed according to histological subtype or occurrence of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy did not offer survival benefit in lymph node-positive esophageal cancer patients primarily treated with surgery.

Major post-operative complications predict long-term survival after esophagectomy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy provides the best opportunity for a long-term cure despite its high post-operative morbidity. We reviewed our institutional records to evaluate the impact of major post-operative complications on the long-term survival of patients following esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We identified 241 patients who underwent esophagectomy as a curative procedure at our tertiary referral center. All consecutive patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus who underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by esophagectomy were analyzed. Complications were graded according to the Clavien scale. Patients were compared according to the complication grade (grades 0-1-2 vs. grades 3-4). Overall survival and disease-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves were compared using log-rank tests. Factors predictive of survival were determined using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Fifty-four patients (46.5 %) developed post-operative complications. The post-operative mortality rate was 4.3 % (five patients). Patients with grade 3-4 complications had decreased overall survival and disease-free survival rates (p = 0.006 and 0.045). Grade 3-4 complications and positive nodes were found to be contributing factors to survival (p = 0.027 and 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our single-institution study found that major morbidity had a negative impact on long-term survival in patients who underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced adenocarcinoma.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer resection: results of a European multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) on anastomotic leakage (AL) and other postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer (EC) resection. BACKGROUND: Conflicting data have emerged from randomized studies regarding the impact of NCRT on AL. METHODS: Among 2944 consecutive patients operated on for EC between 2000 and 2010 in 30 European centers, patients treated by NCRT after surgery (n=593) were compared with those treated by primary surgery (n=1487). Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for the differences in some baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Patients in the NCRT group were younger, with a higher prevalence of male sex, malnutrition, advanced tumor stage, squamous cell carcinoma, and surgery after 2005 when compared with the primary surgery group. Postoperative AL rates were 8.8% versus 10.6% (P=0.220), and 90-day postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 9.3% versus 7.2% (P=0.110) and 33.4% versus 32.1% (P=0.564), respectively. Pulmonary complication rates did not differ between groups (24.6% vs 22.5%; P=0.291), whereas chylothorax (2.5% vs 1.2%; P=0.020), cardiovascular complications (8.6% vs 0.1%; P=0.037), and thromboembolic events (8.6% vs 6.0%; P=0.037) were higher in the NCRT group. After propensity score matching, AL rates were 8.8% versus 11.3% (P=0.228), with more chylothorax (2.5% vs 0.7%; P=0.030) and trend toward more cardiovascular and thromboembolic events in the NCRT group (P=0.069). Predictors of AL were high American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, supracarinal tumoral location, and cervical anastomosis, but not NCRT. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not have an impact on the AL rate after EC resection (NCT 01927016).

Lateral incisional hernia after renal transplantation: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Because of the lack of published data and the relative rarity of lateral incisional hernias (LIHs), especially after renal transplantation, mesh repair of LIH remains a challenge for surgeons. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of LIH treated by mesh repair after renal transplantation. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had undergone LIH mesh repair after renal transplantation were compared with patients who had undergone LIH mesh repair without renal transplantation. Demographic data, incisional hernia characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were prospectively recorded. Early complications and recurrence rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Altogether, 112 patients were treated for LIH with mesh repair. Among these patients, 61 (54.4 %) underwent LIH after renal transplantation. The early complications were similar for the patients with and without renal transplantation (24.5 vs. 23.5 %, respectively; p = 0.896). The recurrence rates also were similar for the patients with and without renal transplantation (9.8 vs. 9.8 %, respectively; p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh graft repair is feasible in patients with LIH after renal transplantation. Postoperative complications and recurrences were not more frequent in renal transplantation patients than in those without renal transplantation.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy following chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess oncological outcomes in patients treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy for advanced pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemoradiotherapy and to compare these with outcomes in patients treated with surgery alone. METHODS: From 2004 to 2009, patients treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma were included in a retrospective comparative study. Patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT group) and were compared with those treated with surgery alone (SURG group). RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included; these comprised 72 patients in the SURG group and 39 patients in the CRT group. The median follow-up was 21 months. Patients in the CRT group presented with a more advanced tumoral status. Microscopic resection rates were similar in both groups, but nodal status and vascular or lymphatic emboli were lower in the CRT group. At 3 years, the SURG and CRT groups exhibited similar overall (36% and 51%, respectively) and disease-free (35% and 37%, respectively) survival (P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, a good response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy results in a survival rate similar to that in patients treated with surgery alone in whom the initial prognosis is better.

Risk of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer After Bariatric Surgery.

Importance: Bariatric surgery has been associated with a reduced risk of cancer in individuals with obesity. The association of bariatric surgery with esophageal and gastric cancer is still controversial, however. Objective: To compare the incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer between patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery and those who did not (control group). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from a national discharge database, including all surgical centers, in France from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. Participants included adults (aged ≥18 years) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery (surgical group) or who did not (control group). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups using nearest neighbor propensity score matching with a 1:2 ratio. The study was conducted from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Exposures: Bariatric surgery (adjustable gastric banding, gastric bypass, and sleeve gastrectomy) vs no surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer. A secondary outcome was overall in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 303 709 patients who underwent bariatric surgery (245 819 females [80.9%]; mean [SD] age, 40.2 [11.9] years) were matched 1:2 with 605 140 patients who did not receive surgery (500 929 females [82.8%]; mean [SD] age, 40.4 [12.5] years). After matching, the 2 groups of patients were comparable in terms of age, sex, and comorbidities (standardized mean difference [SD], 0.05 [0.11]), with some differences in body mass index. The mean follow-up time was 5.62 (2.20) years in the control group and 6.06 (2.31) years in the surgical group. A total of 337 patients had esophagogastric cancer: 83 in the surgical group and 254 in the control group. The incidence rates were 6.9 per 100 000 population per year for the control group and 4.9 per 100 000 population per year for the surgical group, resulting in an incidence rate ratio of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.11-1.82; P = .005). The hazard ratio (HR) of cancer incidence was significantly in favor of the surgical group (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .03). Overall mortality was significantly lower in the surgical group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.64; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large, nationwide cohort of patients with severe obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction of esophageal and gastric cancer incidence and overall in-hospital mortality, which suggests that bariatric surgery can be performed as treatment for severe obesity without increasing the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer.

Gastro-Intestinal Disorders and Micronutrient Deficiencies following Oncologic Esophagectomy and Gastrectomy.

Primary surgical indications for the esophagus and stomach mainly involve cancer surgeries. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the field of esogastric surgery, driven by advancements in surgical techniques and improvements in perioperative care. The rate of resectability has increased, and surgical strategies have evolved to encompass a broader patient population. However, despite a reduction in postoperative mortality and morbidity, malnutrition remains a significant challenge after surgery, leading to weight loss, muscle mass reduction, and deficiencies in essential nutrients due to digestive complications. Malnutrition worsens quality of life and increases the risk of tumor recurrence, significantly affecting prognosis. Nevertheless, the nutritional consequences following surgery are frequently overlooked, mainly due to a lack of awareness regarding their long-term effects on patients who have undergone digestive surgery, extending beyond six months. Micronutrient deficiencies are frequently observed following both partial and total gastrectomy, as anticipated. Surprisingly, these deficiencies appear to be similarly prevalent in patients who have undergone esophagectomy with iron, vitamins A, B1, B12, D, and E deficiencies commonly observed in up to 78.3% of the patients. Recognizing the distinct consequences associated with each type of intervention underscores the importance of implementing preventive measures, early detection, and prompt management.