More Favorable Short and Long-Term Outcomes for Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Screening significantly reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). Screen detected (SD) tumors associate with better prognosis, even at later stage, compared to non-screen detected (NSD) tumors. We aimed to evaluate the association between diagnostic modality (SD vs. NSD) and short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved patients aged 50-69 years, residing in Veneto, Italy, who underwent curative-intent surgery for CRC between 2006 and 2018. The clinical multi-institutional dataset was linked with the screening dataset in order to define diagnostic modality (SD vs. NSD). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 1,360 patients included, 464 were SD (34.1%) and 896 NSD (65.9%). Patients with a SD CRC were more likely to have less comorbidities (p = 0.013), lower ASA score (p = 0.001), tumors located in the proximal colon (p = 0.0018) and earlier stage at diagnosis (p < 0.0001). NSD patients were found to have more aggressive disease at diagnosis, higher complication rate and higher readmission rate due to surgical complications (all p < 0.05). NSD patients had a significantly lower Disease Free Survival and Overall Survival (all p < 0.0001), even after adjusting by demographic, clinic-pathological, tumor, and treatment characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: SD tumors were associated with better long-term outcomes, even after multiple adjustments. Our results confirm the advantages for the target population to participate in the screening programs and comply with their therapeutic pathways.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation.

ᅟ: Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC). Methods: The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017. Results: CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann's procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation. Conclusions: The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy can be used as primary therapy for esophageal achalasia regardless of age.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic Heller-Dor surgery is the current treatment of choice for patients with esophageal achalasia, but elderly patients are generally referred for less invasive treatments (pneumatic dilations or botulinum toxin injections). AIM: To assess the effect of age on the surgical outcome of patients receiving laparoscopic Heller-Dor as primary treatment. METHODS: Demographic and clinical findings were prospectively collected on patients undergoing laparoscopic Heller-Dor from 1992 to 2012. Patients were classified in three age brackets: group A (≤45 years), group B (45-70), and group C (≥70). Treatment was defined as a failure if the postoperative symptom score was >10th percentile of the preoperative score (i.e., >8). We consecutively performed the Heller-Dor in 571 achalasia patients, 305 (53.4 %) in group A, 226 (39.6 %) in group B, and 40 (7 %) in group C. RESULTS: The mortality was nil; the conversion and morbidity rates were both 1.1 %. Group C patients had higher preoperative symptom scores (p = 0.02), while the symptom duration was similar in all three groups. Mucosal tears occurred in 17 patients (3 %): 6 (2 %) in group A, 8 (3.5 %) in group B, and 3 (7.5 %) in group C (p = 0.09). The postoperative hospital stay was slightly longer for group C (p = 0.06). DISCUSSION: The treatment failure rate was quite similar: 31 failures in group A (10.1 %), 19 in group B (8.4 %), and 3 in group C (7.5 %; p = 0.80). These failures were seen more in manometric pattern III (22.2 %, p = 0.002). Laparoscopic Heller-Dor can be used as the first therapeutic approach to achalasia even in elderly patients with an acceptable surgical risk.

The preoperative manometric pattern predicts the outcome of surgical treatment for esophageal achalasia.

BACKGROUND: A new manometric classification of esophageal achalasia has recently been proposed that also suggests a correlation with the final outcome of treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate this hypothesis in a large group of achalasia patients undergoing laparoscopic Heller-Dor myotomy. METHODS: We evaluated 246 consecutive achalasia patients who underwent surgery as their first treatment from 2001 to 2009. Patients with sigmoid-shaped esophagus were excluded. Symptoms were scored and barium swallow X-ray, endoscopy, and esophageal manometry were performed before and again at 6 months after surgery. Patients were divided into three groups: (I) no distal esophageal pressurization (contraction wave amplitude <30 mmHg); (II) rapidly propagating compartmentalized pressurization (panesophageal pressurization >30 mmHg); and (III) rapidly propagating pressurization attributable to spastic contractions. Treatment failure was defined as a postoperative symptom score greater than the 10th percentile of the preoperative score (i.e., >7). RESULTS: Type III achalasia coincided with a longer overall lower esophageal sphincter (LES) length, a lower symptom score, and a smaller esophageal diameter. Treatment failure rates differed significantly in the three groups: I = 14.6% (14/96), II = 4.7% (6/127), and III = 30.4% (7/23; p = 0.0007). At univariate analysis, the manometric pattern, a low LES resting pressure, and a high chest pain score were the only factors predicting treatment failure. At multivariate analysis, the manometric pattern and a LES resting pressure <30 mmHg predicted a negative outcome. CONCLUSION: This is the first study by a surgical group to assess the outcome of surgery in 3 manometric achalasia subtypes: patients with panesophageal pressurization have the best outcome after laparoscopic Heller-Dor myotomy.

Zenker's diverticula: feasibility of a tailored approach based on diverticulum size.

BACKGROUND: Zenker's diverticula (ZD) can be treated by transoral diverticulostomy or open surgery (upper esophageal sphincter myotomy and diverticulectomy or diverticulopexy). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a minimally invasive (group A) versus a traditional open surgical approach (group B) in the treatment of ZD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 1993 and September 2007, 128 ZD patients underwent transoral diverticulostomy (n = 51) or cricopharyngeal myotomy and diverticulectomy or diverticulopexy (n = 77). All patients were evaluated for symptoms using a detailed questionnaire. Manometry recorded upper esophageal sphincter (UES) pressure, relaxations, and intrabolus pharyngeal pressure. The size of the pouch was measured on the barium swallow. The choice of treatment was based on the size of the diverticulum and the patients' preference. Long-term follow-up data were available for 121/128 (94.5%) patients with a median follow-up of 40 months (interquartile range, 17-83). RESULTS: Mortality was nil. Three patients in group A (5.8%) and ten in group B (13%) had postoperative complications (p = n.s.). Hospital stays were markedly shorter for patients after diverticulostomy (p < 0.01). Postoperative manometry showed a reduction in UES pressure, improved UES relaxation, and lower intrabolus pressure in both groups (p < 0.05). Four patients in the open surgery group (5.2%) complained of severe dysphagia after surgery (three of them required endoscopic dilations). In the transoral diverticulostomy group, 11 patients (21.5%) required additional septal reduction (n = 8) or a surgical myotomy (n = 3) for persistent symptoms (p < 0.01); nine of these 11 patients had a ZD < or = 3 cm in size. After primary and complementary treatments, symptoms disappeared or improved significantly at long-term follow-up in 93.5% of patients in group A and 96% of those in group B. CONCLUSION: Diverticulostomy is safe, quick, and effective for most patients with medium-sized ZD, but open surgery offers better long-term results as a primary treatment and should be recommended for younger, healthy patients, especially those with small diverticula. Small ZD may represent a formal contraindication to the transoral approach because an excessively short septum prevents a complete division of the sphincter fibers.