Inadvertent laparoscopic lavage of perforated colon cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis has been grabbing the headlines, it is known that the clinical presentation of peritonitis can also be caused by an underlying perforated carcinoma. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of patients undergoing inadvertent laparoscopic lavage of perforated colon cancer as well as the delay in cancer diagnosis. METHODS: The PubMed database was systematically searched to include all studies meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were screened through titles and abstracts with potentially eligible studies undergoing full-text screening. The primary endpoints of this meta-analysis were the rates of perforated colon cancer patients having undergone inadvertent laparoscopic lavage as well as the delay in cancer diagnosis. This was expressed in pooled rate % and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Eleven studies (three randomized, two prospective, six retrospective) totaling 642 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported how patients were screened for cancer and the number of patients who completed follow-up. The pooled cancer rate was 3.4% (0.9%, 5.8%) with low heterogeneity (Isquare2 = 34.02%) in eight studies. Cancer rates were 8.2% (0%, 3%) (Isquare2 = 58.2%) and 1.7% (0%, 4.5%) (Isquare2 = 0%) in prospective and retrospective studies, respectively. Randomized trials reported a cancer rate of 7.2% (3.1%, 11.2%) with low among-study heterogeneity (Isquare2 = 0%) and a median delay to diagnosis of 2 (1.5-5) months. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that 7% of patients undergoing laparoscopic lavage for peritonitis had perforated colon cancer with a delay to diagnosis of up to 5 months.

Impact of robotic total mesorectal excision upon pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 836 cases.

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the impact of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on pathology metrics in Male Overweight patients with Low rectal cancer (MOL). This was a multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of data. Two groups were defined: MOL (Male, Overweight, Low rectal cancer) and non-MOL. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Low rectal cancer was defined as cancer within 6 cm from the anal verge. The primary endpoints of this study were histopathological metrics, namely circumferential resection margin (CRM) (mm), CRM involvement rate (%), and the quality of TME. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved if < 1 mm. 836 (106 MOL and 730 non-MOL) patients that underwent robotic TME by six surgeons over 3 years were compared. No significant differences in demographics and perioperative variables were found, except for operating time, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. CRM involvement rate did not significantly differ (7.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.395). Mean CRM was statistically significantly narrower in MOL patients (6.6 vs. 7.7 mm, p = 0.04). Quality of TME did not differ. Distance of tumor from the anal verge was the only independent predictor of CRM involvement. Robotic TME may provide optimal pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer. Although CRM was a few millimeters narrower in MOL, the values were within the range of uninvolved margins making the difference statistically significant, but not clinically. Being MOL was not a risk factor for involvement of circumferential resection margin.