The hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced abdominopelvic cancer. Personal experience on 103 procedures during a seventeen year period in a single Italian center.

OBJECTIVE: Integration of different therapeutic strategies in cancer surgery in the last years has led from treating primary lesions to the surgical treatment of metastases. The purpose of this paper is to report a single Italian center experience of treatment of peritoneal carcinosis of the abdominopelvic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 103 HIPEC procedures were performed in 17 years on 94 selected patients affected by abdominopelvic cancer. The PCI score was calculated at laparotomy. The CC score was calculated before doing HIPEC. HIPEC was carried out according to the Coliseum technique. RESULTS: The surgical cytoreduction allowed 89 patients to be subjected to HIPEC treatment with a CC score 0; 9 patients with a CC 1; 3 patients with a CC 2 and 2 patients with a CC 3. In 22 patients postoperative complications were recorded. No operative mortality occurred. The median follow-up of 53 months shows a rate of survival equivalent to 49 %, with a relapse in 46 patients, 29 of them reached exitus. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical resection alone for patients affected by advanced cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis cannot be considered a sufficient treatment any longer and HIPEC would help to prolong survival in these patients.

Complications related to hyperthermia during hypertermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemiotherapy (HIPEC) treatment. Do they exist?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hyperthermia, either alone or in combination with anticancer drugs, is becoming more and more a clinical reality for the treatment of far advanced gastrointestinal cancers, acting as a cytotoxic agent at a temperature between 40-42.5 degrees C. Although hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is demonstrated to have some benefit in selected patients with peritoneal seeding, there are not enough data on the risk of damage of normal tissue that increases as the temperature rises, with possible serious and, sometimes, lethal complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched on medline words like "intraoperative intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia and morbidity", focusing our attention on studies (published since 1990) which reported morbidity as bowel obstruction, bowel perforation or anastomic leak, during intraoperative intraoperitoneal chemotherapy in hyperthermia (HIPEC). RESULTS: Heat acts increasing cancer cell killing after exposure to ionizing radiation, inhibiting repairing processes of radiation-induced DNA lesions (radiosensitization), and also sensitizing cancer cells to chemotherapeutic drugs, particularly to alkylating agents (chemosensitization). The peritoneal carcinomatosis (a frequent evolution of advanced digestive cancer) represents one of the main indication to hypertermic treatment. In the last fifteen years, in fact, different methods were developed for the surgery treatment (peritonectomy) and for loco-regional chemotherapic treatment of the carcinomatosis (intraperitoneal intra/post-operative iper/normothermic chemotherapy) to act directly on neoplastic seeding. We found, as result of different studies, 9 articles, written about perforation after HIPEC. CONCLUSION: The aim of the present study is to present the review of the literature in terms of peri-operative complications related to the hyperthermia during intraoperative chemohyperthermia procedure.

Local anesthesia for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports the results of a prospective continuous cohort of patients treated for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with a unified anesthetic strategy based on the use of local anesthesia (LA) in all patients, while reserving regional (RA) or general anesthesia (GA) only for those with predefined individually or surgically specific indications. METHODS: All patients treated by EVAR for an elective aortic abdominal aneurysm (AAA) between April 1998 and December 2003 were included. The strategy of treatment generated three cohorts of patients (LA, RA, or GA). Primary outcome included all-cause mortality, nonfatal cardiac morbidity, respiratory complications, and renal failure. Secondary outcome measures included conversion to general anesthesia, use of analgesics, and time-related outcomes (operating time, length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital, time required to resume oral intake, and time to ambulation). RESULTS: A total of 239 patients underwent EVAR: 170 LA, 31 RA, and 38 GA. Overall mortality was one patient (0.4%). LA was associated with a lower incidence of complications compared with GA (P < .001). In the LA group, two patients had to be converted to GA, one because of a dissection and one because of anxiety. In 13% of the patients in the LA group, additional intravenous sedation or analgesia was required. Operating time and length of stay in intensive care was shorter in the LA and RA groups than in the GA group (P < .001). Length of stay in hospital and time to ambulation and regular diet was shorter in the LA group compared with the RA and GA groups (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy based on the preferential use of LA for EVAR restricting RA or GA only to those with predefined contraindications is feasible and appears to be well tolerated.