The Italian Unitary Society of Colon-proctology (SIUCP: Società Italiana Unitaria di Colonproctologia) guidelines for the management of anal fissure.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (SIUCP: Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia) on the diagnosis and management of anal fissure, with the purpose to guide every physician in the choice of the best treatment option, according with the available literature. METHODS: A panel of experts was designed and charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key-questions on the main topics covering the management of anal fissure and to performe an accurate search on each topic in different databanks, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in different rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to the PICO criteria, and the statements developed adopting the GRADE methodology. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute anal fissure the medical therapy with dietary and behavioral norms is indicated. In the chronic phase of disease, the conservative treatment with topical 0.3% nifedipine plus 1.5% lidocaine or nitrates may represent the first-line therapy, eventually associated with ointments with film-forming, anti-inflammatory and healing properties such as Propionibacterium extract gel. In case of first-line treatment failure, the surgical strategy (internal sphincterotomy or fissurectomy with flap), may be guided by the clinical findings, eventually supported by endoanal ultrasound and anal manometry.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Results from a multicentre comparative study on 512 right-sided colorectal cancers.

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.

Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123-0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462-1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78-1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64-1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846-3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD - 0.579,95% CI - 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119-0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.