Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago.

BACKGROUND: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. METHODS: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. CONCLUSIONS: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception.

Additional Non-contrast CT to Portal Venous Phase is not Relevant for Patients referred for Colonic Diverticulitis or Sigmoiditis Suspicion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of unenhanced CT added to the portal venous phase in the diagnostic accuracy of acute colonic diverticulitis/sigmoiditis. METHODS: Between January 1st and December 31st, 2020, all consecutive adult patients referred to the radiology department for clinical suspicion of acute colonic diverticulitis/sigmoiditis were retrospectively screened. To be included, patients must have undergone a CT with both unenhanced (UCT) and contrast-enhanced portal venous phase CT (CECT). CT examinations were assessed for features of diverticulitis, complications, differential diagnosis and incidental findings using UCT + CECT association, medical management, and follow-up as the reference. Radiation doses were recorded on our image archiving system and assessed. RESULTS: Of the 114 patients included (mean age was 67±18 years; 60% were female), 46 had acute colonic diverticulitis/sigmoiditis. No diagnosis of sigmoiditis/diverticulitis, complication or differential diagnosis was missed with the CECT alone. Apart from diverticulitis, only one 2 mm meatal urinary microlithiasis was missed with no impact on patient management. The confidence level in diagnosis was not increased by UCT. The average DLP of CECT was 450 mGy.cm, and 382 mGy.cm for UCT. The use of a single-phase CECT acquisition allowed a reduction of 45.9% of the irradiation. CONCLUSION: Unenhanced CT is not necessary for patients addressed with clinical suspicion of acute colonic diverticulitis/sigmoiditis, and CECT alone protocol must be used.

Liver Venous Deprivation or Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy?: A Retrospective Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 techniques of remnant liver hypertrophy in candidates for extended hepatectomy: radiological simultaneous portal vein embolization and hepatic vein embolization (HVE); namely LVD, and ALPPS. BACKGROUND: Recent advances in chemotherapy and surgical techniques have widened indications for extended hepatectomy, before which remnant liver augmentation is mandatory. ALPPS and LVD typically show higher hypertrophy rates than portal vein embolization, but their respective places in patient management remain unclear. METHODS: All consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures performed in 8 French centers between 2011 and 2020 were included. The main endpoint was the successful resection rate (resection rate without 90-day mortality) analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle. Secondary endpoints were hypertrophy rates, intra and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Among 209 patients, 124 had LVD 37 [13,1015] days before surgery, whereas 85 underwent ALPPS with an inter-stages period of 10 [6, 69] days. ALPPS was mostly-performed for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), LVD for CRLM and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hypertrophy was faster for ALPPS. Successful resection rates were 72.6% for LVD ± rescue ALPPS (n = 6) versus 90.6% for ALPPS (P < 0.001). Operative duration, blood losses and length-of-stay were lower for LVD, whereas 90-day major complications and mortality were comparable. Results were globally unchanged for CRLM patients, or after excluding the early 2 years of experience (learning-curve effect). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first 1 comparing LVD versus ALPPS in the largest cohort so far. Despite its retrospective design, it yields original results that may serve as the basis for a prospective study.

Modified Appleby Procedure, Distal Splenopancreatectomy with Celiac Axis Resection.

BACKGROUND: Modified Appleby procedure could be indicated in stage III locally advanced body pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) involving the celiac axis after neoadjuvant treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report the case of a 38-year-old woman presenting a tumor arising from the body of the pancreas, involving the celiac trunk with the common hepatic artery and having contact with the anterior surface of the superior mesenteric artery. A fine-needle aspirate biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of PADC. Eight cycles of FOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiotherapy (50.4 Gy) were conducted. After 6 months, the CA19-9 levels were normalized, and the tumor remained stable without local growth or distant metastasis. To reduce the risk of ischemia-related complications and develop the pancreaticoduodenal arcades, a preoperative embolization of the common hepatic artery was performed. Then, surgical resection was considered 4 weeks after embolization. RESULTS: The patient underwent a modified Appleby procedure including distal splenopancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection combined with lateral portal vein resection. Venous reconstruction was carried out using peritoneal patch.1 Pathologic evaluation revealed a 2.5-cm PDAC with negative resection margins. Postoperative course was marked by acute ischemic cholecystitis requiring reoperation at postoperative day 3. The treatment was completed with four cycles of FOLFIRINOX, and she was free of disease 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays, modified Appleby procedure is more frequently performed due to improvements in responses to chemotherapy and radiotherapy which have led to better local control and more aggressive approaches in highly selected patients.

Perioperative Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation to Reduce Postoperative Ileus After Colorectal Resection: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus involves an inflammatory pathway characterized by an increase of inflammation mediators in the colon wall; this could probably be prevented by sacral nerve neuromodulation. The posterior tibial nerve can be stimulated electrically to mimic neuromodulation. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in reducing the delay in GI motility recovery, to assess the safety of posterior tibial nerve stimulation in a perioperative setting, and to assess the efficacy of posterior tibial nerve stimulation in reducing the occurrence of postoperative ileus. DESIGN: This was a preliminary randomized controlled study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in 1 academic hospital in France. PATIENTS: Forty patients undergoing an elective colectomy were included and randomly assigned into 2 groups, posterior tibial nerve stimulation or placebo, according to the side of colectomy and the surgical access size. INTERVENTION: Perioperative posterior tibial nerve stimulation or placebo was performed 3 times per day according to the randomly assigned group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Delay in GI motility recovery (passage of stool and tolerance of solid food) was measured. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients included, 34 were included in the final analysis, in which 2 patients in the placebo group were allocated the incorrect device. The 6 other patients were secondarily excluded because of protocol deviation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean delay in GI motility recovery was 3.6 and 3.11 days (in the placebo and tibial nerve stimulation groups; p = 0.60). Occurrence of postoperative ileus was not significantly higher in the placebo group (35.3% vs 17.6%; p = 0.42). In the per-protocol analysis, we observed the same trends except for the occurrence of postoperative ileus, which was significantly higher in the placebo group (p = 0.045). Tolerance to posterior tibial nerve stimulation was good, and all of the patients completed the protocol. LIMITATIONS: The amplitude of stimulation is set according to patient sensation, so some patients could have been aware of their group. In addition there were some inherent limitations because of the preliminary nature of the study and several deviations from the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior tibial nerve stimulation was safe in a perioperative setting and had a potential effect on GI motility recovery. The results of this study will be useful for sample size calculations in a larger prospective randomized trial. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A708.