What is the Best Option Between Primary Diverting Stoma or Endoscopic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery with a Curative Intent for Obstructed Left Colon Cancer? Results from a Propensity Score Analysis of the French Surgical Association Multicenter Cohort of 518 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic stent (ES) as a bridge to surgery in obstructed left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. Our goal was to compare the operative and oncological results of primary diverting colostomy (PDC) and ES for the curative treatment of OLCC. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, patients who underwent PDC or ES in a curative intent for OLCC at member centers of the French Surgical Association were included. Patients with unresectable tumors and/or synchronous metastases were excluded. Comparisons between the two groups were performed after ponderation with propensity score for: demographic and tumor characteristics, operative, and oncological results. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients were included: PDC (n = 327); ES (n = 191). The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. ES failed in 23% of the patients (11% perforation). Cumulative tumor resection rates were 80% and 86% after PDC and ES, respectively (p = 0.049). The rates of primary anastomosis were 57% in the PDC group and 40% in the ES group (p < 0.0001). The permanent stoma rates were similar between the two groups (29% vs. 28%, p = 0.0586). Cumulative overall, surgical, and medical complications were significantly higher in PDC group. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less frequently perforated and metastatic in the PDC group. The median overall survival was significantly higher after PDC (123.6 vs. 58.5 months, p = 0.046), whereas the median disease-free survival was similar between the two groups (54.1 vs. 53.6 months, p = 0.646). CONCLUSIONS: Although endoscopic stenting is associated with better surgical outcomes than diverting stoma, it may negatively impact histological features and overall survival.

Interchangeability of right ventricular longitudinal shortening fraction assessed by transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography in the perioperative setting: A prospective study.

Background: Conventional transthoracic (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) parameters assessing right ventricle (RV) systolic function are daily used assuming their clinical interchangeability. RV longitudinal shortening fraction (RV-LSF) is a two-dimensional speckle tracking parameter used to assess RV systolic function. RV-LSF is based on tricuspid annular displacement analysis and could be measured with TTE or TEE. Objective: The aim of the study was to determine if RV-LSFTTE and RV-LSFTEE measurements were interchangeable in the perioperative setting. Methods: Prospective perioperative TTE and TEE echocardiography were performed under general anesthesia during scheduled cardiac surgery in 90 patients. RV-LSF was measured by semi-automatic software. Comparisons were performed using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman plots. RV-LSF clinical agreement was determined as a range of -5 to 5%. Results: Of the 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 90 were included. The mean preoperative RV-LSFTTE was 20.4 ± 4.3 and 21.1 ± 4.1% for RV-LSFTEE. The agreement between RV-LSF measurements was excellent, with a bias at -0.61 and limits of agreement of -4.18 to 2.97 %. All measurements fell within the determined clinical agreement interval in the Bland-Altman plot. Linear regression analysis showed a high correlation between RV-LSFTTE and RV-LSFTEE measurement (r = 0.9; confidence interval [CI] 95%: [0.87-0.94], p < 0.001). Conclusion: RV-LSFTTE and RV-LSFTEE measurements are interchangeable, allowing RV-LSF to be a helpful parameter for assessing perioperative changes in RV systolic function. NCT: NCT05404737. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05404737.