Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

The use of intra-abdominal drain in minimally invasive right colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis on postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE: No evidences supporting or not the use of intra-abdominal drain (AD) in minimally invasive right colectomies have been published. This study aims to assess the outcomes on its use after robotic or laparoscopic right colectomies. METHODS: This is a multicenter propensity score matched study including patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy with (AD group) or without (no-AD group) the use of AD between February 1, 2007, and January 31, 2018. AD patients were matched to no-AD patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were postoperative morbidity and mortality and anastomotic leak. RESULTS: A total of 653 patients were included. Of 149 (22.8%) no-AD patients, 124 could be matched. The rate of postoperative complications (AD n = 26, 21% vs. no-AD n = 26, 21%; p = 1.000), mortality (AD n = 2, 1.6% vs. no-AD n = 1, 0.8%; p = 1.000), anastomotic leak (AD n = 2, 1.6% vs. no-AD n = 5, 4.0%; p = 0.453), and wound infection (AD n = 9, 7.3% vs. no-AD n = 6, 4.8%; p = 0.581) did not significantly differ between the groups. Time to oral feeding was significantly shorter in the no-AD group [2 (1-3) vs. 3 (2-3), p = 0.0001]. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (IQR 7-9) in the AD group while it was 6 (IQR 5-9) in the no-AD group (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the use of AD after minimally invasive right colectomies has no influence on postoperative morbidity and mortality rates.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In literature, most of the comparative studies of robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) right colectomy are biased by the type of the anastomotic technique adopted. With this study, we aim to understand whether there is a role for robotics in performing right colectomies, comparing RRC versus LRC, both performed with intracorporeal anastomosis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) with intracorporeal anastomosis in three Italian high-volume centers between February 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped according to the method of surgery: RRC or LRC. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients were included in the study (305 RRC vs. 84 LRC). Patients' baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in RRC (250 min, IQR 209-305) group than LRC group (160 min, IQR 130-200) (p < 0.001). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (IQR 18-29) in RRC group while it was 19 (IQR 15-27) in LRC one (p = 0.028). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of time-to-first flatus, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Re-admission rate was significantly higher in LRC (n = 3, 3.6%) group than in RRC group (n = 1, 0.3%) (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, RRC and LRC are comparable in terms of functional postoperative outcomes and length of hospital stay. RRC requires longer operative time, but the number of lymph nodes harvested may be higher.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the right colon surgery, there is a growing literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). With this paper we aim to systematically revise and meta-analyze the latest comparative studies on these two minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2017 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss, conversion to open surgery, harvested lymph node anastomotic leak, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, time to first flatus, non-surgical complications, wound infections, hospital stay, and incisional hernia and costs. A subgroup analysis was performed on those series presenting only extracorporeal anastomosis in both arms. RESULTS: After screening 355 articles, 11 articles with a total of 8257 patients were eligible for inclusion. Operative time was found to be significantly shorter for the laparoscopic procedures in the pooled analysis (SMD - 0.99 95% CI - 1.4 to - 0.6, p < 0.001). Conversion to open surgery was more common during laparoscopic procedures than during the robotic ones (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p = 0.02). No significant differences in mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.23, p = 0.124) and postoperative complications (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.9-1.2, p = 0.5) were found between LRC versus RRC. The pooled mean time to first flatus was higher in the laparoscopic group (SMD 0.85 days; 95% CI 0.16-1.54, p = 0.016). Hospital costs were significantly higher in RRCs (SMD - 0.52; 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.04, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: RRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique. Its superiority in terms of postoperative recovery must be confirmed by further large prospective series comparing RRC and LRC performed with the same anastomotic technique. RRC seemed to be associated with higher costs than LRC.

Gene methylation in rectal cancer: predictive marker of response to chemoradiotherapy?

Although numerous studies have focused on the link between CpG island methylator phenotypes and the development of colorectal cancer, few studies have dealt specifically with methylation profiling in rectal cancer and its role in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). We characterized methylation profiles in normal and neoplastic tissue samples from patients with rectal cancer and assessed the role of this molecular profile in predicting chemoradioactivity. We evaluated 74 pretreatment tumor samples and 16 apparently normal tissue biopsies from rectal cancer patients submitted to NCRT. The methylation profile of 24 different tumor suppressor genes was analyzed from FFPE samples by methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA). Methylation status was studied in relation to tissue type and clinical pathological parameters, in particular, pathological response evaluated by tumor regression grade (TRG). ESR1, CDH13, RARB, IGSF4, and APC genes showed high methylation levels in tumor samples (range 18.92-49.77) with respect to normal tissue. Methylation levels of the remaining genes were low and similar in both normal (range 1.91-14.56) and tumor tissue (range 1.84-11). Analysis of the association between methylation and response to therapy in tumor samples showed that only TIMP3 methylation status differed significantly within the four TRG classes (ANOVA, P < 0.05). Results from the present explorative study suggest that quantitative epigenetic classification of rectal cancer by MS-MLPA clearly distinguishes tumor tissue from apparently normal mucosa. Conversely, with the exception of TIMP3 gene, the methylation of selected genes does not seem to correlate with response to NCRT.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience.

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.

Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was - 3270$ (95% CI - 4757 to - 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.

Average treatment effect of robotic versus laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to estimate what would have happened if all patients treated with laparoscopy for rectal cancer had instead been treated with the robotic technique. METHODS: To estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic approach, data from patients treated at two centres between 2007 and 2018 were used to obtain counterfactual outcomes using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) adjustment. RESULTS: This study enrolled 261 patients, of which 177 and 84 patients had undergone robotic surgery and standard laparoscopy, respectively. After IPW adjustment, the difference between the groups was similar in the pseudo-population. The average conversion rate would fall by an estimated 6.1% if all procedures had been robotic (p = 0.045). All other post-operative variables showed no differences regardless of the approach. CONCLUSION: ATE estimation suggests that robotic rectal cancer surgery could be associated with a lower conversion rate. The approach did not affect the post-operative morbidity rates or the operative time.

The effect of learning curve on perioperative outcomes of robotic gastrectomy in two western high-volume centers.

INTRODUCTION: To compare outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) performed during the learning curve (P1) with those after its completion (P2). METHODS: In this retrospective study, all consecutive RG patients (n = 92) performed between 2008 and 2018 were included. Primary outcome was conversion rate. RESULTS: D2 lymphadenectomies were more common in P2 (41, 97.6%) than P1 (41, 82.0%) (p = 0.019). Conversions were 11 (22%) in P1 versus 2 (4.8%) in P2 (p = 0.006). Postoperative morbidity was comparable between the groups. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in P2. The only factor significantly associated with conversion was P2 (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.85; p = 0.039). The 5-year overall survival in P1 was 79.6% versus 79.7% in P2 (p = 0.373). CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve affected operative and postoperative outcomes: during the learning curve, conversion to open surgery was significantly more frequent, the number of D2 was higher and patients were discharged earlier.

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer in the west: A systematic review and meta-analyses of short-and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to merge all the western studies dealing with robotic gastrectomies (RG) to provide pooled results and higher levels of evidence supporting the use of robotic gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer also at western latitudes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning RG in western centers. Case series and comparative studies (robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic) were included. RESULTS: After screening 1732 articles, 10 articles with a total of 988 patients undergoing RG in western centers were eligible for inclusion. Included studies showed a relatively low risk of bias. The pooled conversion rate was 3.9% (95% CI 1.2-7.9). The pooled overall complications rate was 15% (7.1-25.3) with a mortality rate of 2.5% (1.1-4.7). The pooled 5-year overall survival rate was 60.4% (46.0-74.1). The pooled analyses of the comparative studies (robotic versus open) included 132 robotic and 305 open gastrectomies and showed comparable safety parameters. The robotic group had a pooled 5-year overall survival of 55.2% (33.7-75.8) versus 50.8% (36.4-65.2) of the open group (RR 1.10, 0.78-1.55; p = 0.248 - I2 51.8, 0.0-86.1; p = 0.125). The meta analyses of the results from the studies comparing the robotic (n = 679) and the laparoscopic (n = 1355) approach (LG) showed similar morbidity (RG 19.9%, 10.2-32.0 versus LG 15.6%, 8.7-24.0; p = 0.706) and mortality rates (RG 5.5%, 3.9-7.3 versus LG 4.3%, 3.3-5.4; p = 0.272). RG had longer operative time (RG 327 min, 297-358 versus LG 248, 222-275; p = 0.001) and lower blood loss (RG 99 ml, 96-103 versus LG 133, 104-161; p < 0.001) than laparoscopic gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Based on the available data from western centers, robotic gastrectomy is comparable with the open and the laparoscopic approaches with regards to short term outcomes. Survival data of RG were similar to open gastrectomies, but studies on long-term outcomes are required to confirm these results.

Neoadjuvant treatment (FOLFOX4 plus hypofractionated tomotherapy) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter phase II trial.

AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new neoadjuvant regimen (FOLFOX4 plus hypofractionated tomotherapy) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage II-III rectal cancer were treated with the pre-operative chemoradiotherapy regimen comprising FOLFOX4 (two cycles), TomoTherapy (25 Gy in five consecutive fractions, one fraction per day in 5 days on the clinical target volume at the isodose of 95% of the total dose), FOLFOX4 (two cycles), followed by surgery with total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 (eight cycles). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled and 50 patients were evaluable. A total of 46 (92%) patients completed chemoradiotherapy according to the study protocol and 49 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 12 patients achieved a pCR (24.5%, 95% CI 12.5-36.5). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were neutropenia and alteration of the alvus. Adverse reactions due to radiotherapy, mainly grade 1-2 dermatitis, tenesmus, urinary dysfunction and pain, were tolerable and fully reversible. The most important surgical complications included infection, anastomotic leakage and fistula, all resolved with conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: FOLFOX and hypofractionated TomoTherapy is effective and safe in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Long-term efficacy needs to be further evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02000050 (registration date: 26 November 2013) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02000050.

Systemic cytokine response after emergency and elective surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Systemic cytokines (SC) are accepted mediators of host immune response. It is debated if long-term survival is influenced by emergency presentation of colorectal cancer, and the role of immunitary response is still unknown. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the SC response after emergency resection with that after elective resections of colorectal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred six consecutive subjects with colorectal cancer were submitted to emergency (complete bowel obstruction; EMS, n = 50) or elective resection (ELS, n = 56) of the tumour. Sera were collected before surgery and at appropriate time points afterward and assayed for interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Five-year survival was analysed according to Kaplan-Meier test. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Pre-operative levels of IL-1beta, IL-6 and CRP were statistically higher in the EMS group. Levels of TNF-alpha were not elevated after surgery and there was no difference between the groups. Five-year survival was significantly lower in the EMS group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Immunitary response, as reflected by SC, was better after elective resection than after emergency resection of colorectal carcinoma and this difference may have implication in the long-term survival.

Robotic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis on short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was compare short- and long-term outcomes between robotic (RG) and standard open gastrectomy (OG). METHODS: This is a single-center propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent RG or OG for gastric cancer between 2008 and 2018. RESULTS: In total, 191 patients could be included for analysis. Of 60 RG patients, 49 could be matched. After matching, significant differences in baseline characteristics were no longer present. Operative time was significantly longer (451 min, IQR: 392-513) in the RG group than in the OG (262 min, IQR: 225-330) (P < .0001). No significant differences in postoperative complications between RG (n = 15, 30.6%) and OG (n = 15, 30.6%) were seen (P = 1.000). Overall survival was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: RG is feasible and safe. With regard to long-term oncologic outcomes, survivals in the RG group were similar to those in OG group.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery.

AIM: To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS: This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS: The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

miR-17-92a-1 cluster host gene (MIR17HG) evaluation and response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) followed by surgery is the gold standard for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, response is variable, and no predictive markers have been validated. The amplification of 13q31-34 seemed to distinguish between nonresponders and responders to NCRT. The miR-17-92a-1 cluster host gene (MIR17HG), which is involved in the development, progression, and aggressiveness of colorectal cancer, and the ABCC4 gene, an ATP-binding cassette transporter, are located at this region. Moreover, the transcription factor c-Myc is closely related to MIR17HG. The aim of this study was to examine the role of MIR17HG, ABCC4, and CMYC gene copy numbers (CNs) in determining response to NCRT. We analyzed DNA CN of pretherapy biopsies from 108 LARC patients and the expression of microRNA (miR)-17, miR-18a, miR-19a, miR-19b-1, miR-20a, and miR-92a-1 in 34 biopsies. MIR17HG, CMYC, and ABCC4 gene CNs were frequently altered in pretreatment tumors, amplification being the most frequent alteration. With regard to response to therapy, 41% of responders showed MIR17HG deletion, while MIR17HG amplification was observed in 41% of nonresponders. With regard to pathological T stage (ypT), a higher percentage of ypT3-4 than ypT0-2 tumors showed MIR17HG amplification. Finally, a higher, albeit nonsignificant, variability in the expression of MIR17HG cluster members was detected in nonresponders compared to responders. No association was observed between clinical pathological parameters and ABCC4 or CMYC CN. Our data did not highlight a significant association between MIR17HG, CMYC, and ABCC4 gene CNs and response to NCRT in LARC. However, MIR17HG gene amplification would seem to be related to a lack of response. Evaluation of the expression of MIR17HG cluster members is warranted in a larger case series, together with functional studies, to evaluate the potential of this gene as a new predictive marker.

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric cancer compared on surgical, clinical and oncological outcomes: a multi-institutional chart review. A study protocol of the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer-IMIGASTRIC.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer represents a great challenge for healthcare providers and requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach in which surgery plays a major role. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively developed, first with the advent of laparoscopy and recently with the spread of robotic surgery, but a number of issues are currently being debated, including the limitations in performing an effective extended lymph node dissection, the real advantages of robotic systems, the role of laparoscopy for Advanced Gastric Cancer, the reproducibility of a total intracorporeal technique and the oncological results achievable during long-term follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multi-institutional international database will be established to evaluate the role of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches in gastric cancer, comprising of information regarding surgical, clinical and oncological features. A chart review will be conducted to enter data of participants with gastric cancer, previously treated at the participating institutions. The database is the first of its kind, through an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centres. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevant laws/regulations. A multicentre study with a large number of patients will permit further investigation of the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches for the management of gastric cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02325453; Pre-results.

Emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer over 90 years of age.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colorectal cancer has an extremely poor prognosis in the elderly with high rates of emergency presentation and perioperative mortality. This report examines our experience and results in the emergency treatment of patients older than 90 years with colorectal cancer. METHODOLOGY: From 1995 to 2000, 486 patients with colorectal cancer were operated on in an emergency surgery situation at the Department of Emergency Surgery of Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital. A retrospective analysis of 20 patients aged 90 or older was carried out. RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent resection of the primary growth and anastomosis and 7 subjects with carcinomatosis had palliative intervention by creating a stoma only or bypass anastomosis without resection. We registered two deaths caused by respiratory insufficiency and 2 postoperative complications successfully treated with medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer in patients over 90 years of age can be performed safely without restrictions related to the age.

Stapled versus hand-sewn anastomoses in emergency intestinal surgery: results of a prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: Sutured and stapled intestinal anastomoses are perceived to be equally safe in elective intestinal surgery. However, our search of the literature failed to find any studies comparing hand-sewn and mechanical anastomoses in emergency intestinal surgery. Thus, we compared the short-term outcomes of patients with sutured as opposed to stapled anastomoses in emergency intestinal surgery. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2001, 201 patients underwent emergency intestinal operations at the Department of Emergency Surgery of Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital. The outcomes of patients with sutured and stapled anastomoses were compared in a prospective analysis. Patients were randomly divided into a stapled group (106 anastomoses) with anastomoses made using linear and circular staplers, and a hand-sewn group (95 anastomoses) with anastomoses made by double-layer suturing. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in operative indications or other parameters. The operation times in the stapled group were significantly shorter than those in the hand-sewn group (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rates, morbidity, or postoperative mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency intestinal surgery comparable results can be achieved using mechanical and manual anastomoses.