Outcomes of elective left colectomy in renal-transplanted patients: a single-center case-control study (LECoRT study).

PURPOSE: Renal-transplanted patients are reported to have a high anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after colorectal surgery. We aimed to define AL-related morbidity and mortality rates after elective left colectomy in renal-transplanted patients. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected between 2010 and 2015 from patients who underwent elective left colectomy with supra-peritoneal anastomosis in a single French referral hospital. We compared AL rate, and morbidity and mortality rates between renal-transplanted patients and controls. RESULTS: We identified 120 patients who underwent elective left colectomy during the study period. We retrospectively divided this cohort into 20 (17%) kidney-transplanted recipients (KTR-group) and the remaining 100 patients comprised the control group (C-group). There were no significant differences in sex, age, ASA score, body mass index, history of abdominal surgery and benign/malignant disease ratio between the KTR-group and the C-group. The AL rate was approximately four times higher in the KTR-group versus the C-group (25% vs 7%, p = 0.028). Intra-abdominal septic complications (p = 0.0005) and reoperation rates (p = 0.025) were also higher in the KTR-group. The laparoscopic approach was performed less in the KTR-group (35% versus 93%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Renal transplantation was identified as a risk factor of AL following elective left colectomy, as well as increased intra-abdominal septic morbidity and higher reoperation rate. Further multicentric studies are required to identify potential independent risk factors of AL after colorectal surgery in these frail populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was declared on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04495023).

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). METHODS: From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. RESULTS: A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m2 (20-31 kg/m2). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (- 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.

Impact of laparoscopy in patients aged over 70 years requiring distal pancreatectomy: a French multicentric comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available concerning short-term results of minimally invasive surgery in patients > 70 years old requiring distal pancreatectomy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term results after laparoscopic (LDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: All patients > 70 years who underwent distal pancreatectomy in 3 expert centers between 1995 and 2017 were included and data were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic, intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes in LDP and ODP groups were compared. RESULTS: A distal pancreatectomy was performed in 109 elderly patients; LDP group included 53 patients while ODP group included 56. There were 55 (50.5%) males and 54 (49.5%) women with a median age of 75 years (range 70-87). Fifty (45.9%) patients were 70-74, 40 (36.7%) patients were 75-79, and 19 (17.4%) patients were over 80 years. Nine (8.2%) patients required conversion to open surgery. The median operative time was not different between LDP and ODP (204 vs. 220 min, p = 0.62). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LDP group (238 ± 312 vs. 425 ± 582 ml, p = 0.009) with no difference regarding the intraoperative transfusion rate. 90-day mortality (0 vs. 5%, p = 0.42), overall complication (45.4 vs. 51.8%, p = 0.53), major complication (18.2 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.43), grade B/C pancreatic fistula (6.8 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.71), were comparable in the 2 groups. Only postoperative confusion rate was significantly lower in the LDP group (4.5 vs. 25%, p = 0.01). Median length of stay was significantly lower in the LDP group (14 ± 10 vs. 16 ± 11 days, p = 0.04). R0 resection was performed in 94% of LDP patients and 89% in ODP patients without significant difference (p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach seems to reduce blood loss, postoperative confusion, and length of stay in elderly patients requiring distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic approach for retrorectal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Retrorectal tumors are uncommon and may represent a surgical challenge. Laparoscopic excision has been reported in very few papers. We present our experience of nine cases operated by a transabdominal laparoscopic approach, between 2005 and 2011. METHODS: There were two males and seven females with a mean age of 35 years (range 19-48). The tumors were discovered incidentally in four cases or because of nonspecific clinical signs. All patients have had an MRI preoperatively. RESULTS: Only one patient required open conversion due to a huge tumor >7 cm of diameter. Postoperative mortality was nil. One patient developed a hematoma in the pelvic area. The median hospital stay was 4.7 days (range 4-8). Final diagnostic were as follows: four schwannomas, one ganglioneuroma, two tailgut cysts, one anterior meningocele, and one paragangliomas. During the follow-up showed no recurrences, but four of nine patients developed neurologic complications as parenthesis and sciatic pain and one patient developed retrograde ejaculation. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series shows that the laparoscopic approach is a feasible and safe option. It reduces surgical trauma and offers an excellent tool for perfect visualization of the deep structures in the presacral space to minimize the vascular and neurological injuries.

Emergency preoperative stenting versus surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of left colonic cancer presenting as an acute obstruction remains controversial and still is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Recently, self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) have been used as a bridge to surgery in an attempt to decompress the colon and then allow elective one-stage surgical resection without stoma placement. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of emergency surgery alone with emergency placement of colonic SEMS as a bridge to surgery in terms of efficiency and reduction of the stoma placement rate. METHODS: A multicenter prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted according to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) Statement criteria. Patients eligible for the study were randomized to either emergency surgery or emergency SEMS as a bridge to surgery. The primary outcome was the need for a stoma (temporary or permanent) for any reason. The secondary end points were mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Nine centers participated in the trial. Among the 70 patients eligible for the study, 60 were randomized and included for the final analysis, 30 patients in each group. Seven patients were randomized but did not fulfill the entry requirements, whereas three further eligible patients were not randomized for various reasons. Concerning the primary outcome, 17 patients in the surgery group sustained a stoma placement versus 13 patients in the SEMS group (p=0.30). No statistically significant difference was noted concerning the secondary outcomes. A total of 16 attempts at SEMS placement (53.3%) were technical failures. Two colonic perforations directly related to the stent placement procedure occurred among the 30 randomized patients and 1 perforation occurred among the nonrandomized patients, leading to premature closure of inclusions in the study before the expected number of 80 patients was reached. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial failed to demonstrate that emergency preoperative SEMS for patients presenting with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction could significantly decrease the need for stoma placement.