Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to review the early postoperative and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for T4 cancer compared with open surgery. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for any relevant clinical study comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy as treatment for T4 colonic cancer. The risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent c.i. was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference (m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence interval for continuous variables. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was implemented for assessing quality of evidence (QoE). RESULTS: Twenty-four observational studies (21 retrospective and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included, analysing a total of 18 123 patients: 9024 received laparoscopic colectomy and 9099 underwent open surgery. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality (RR 0.48, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.56; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE moderate) and complications (RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76; P < 0.001; I2 = 20 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) compared with an open procedure. No differences in R0 resection rate (RR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.12; I2 = 37 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) and recurrence rate (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.14; P = 0.81; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE very low) were found. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colectomy for T4 colonic cancer is safe, and is associated with better clinical outcomes than open surgery and similar oncological outcomes.

Colonic cancer is a common condition, and in 10-20 per cent of patients the tumour has grown beyond the bowel wall or invaded other organs at diagnosis (called locally advanced colonic cancer). This study reviews the use of laparoscopic (minimally invasive surgery or keyhole surgery) to treat these locally advanced tumours. Medical databases were searched for research publications on the subject. In total, 24 studies (including data on 18 123 patients) comparing laparoscopic with traditional open surgery were identified. Analysing the data of the studies together found that laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower rates of mortality and surgical complications. No difference in survival or cancer recurrence was found.

The role of laparoscopic splenectomy in traumatic splenic injury: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Splenic injuries are one of the commonest occurrences in abdominal trauma. Nonoperative management (NOM) is the treatment of choice in hemodynamically stable patients with low grade injuries in the absence of vascular injury on CT; however, in some cases, NOM can fail and surgery is required. Traditionally, splenectomy is performed via laparotomy but, recently, the use of laparoscopy is rapidly increasing because the numerous advantages it offers for selected trauma patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed through Medline for papers on the laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) in trauma patients, published from January 2006 to July 2022. The inclusion criteria were the study population consisted of hemodynamically stable adult patients treated with LS, as primary treatment or in case of complication or failure of NOM. The data extracted included gender, patient age, type of trauma, ISS, indication for LS and if LS was performed primary or secondary to NOM. The considered outcomes were operative time, length of stay, morbidity and mortality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight papers were considered suitable for the study and all the articles were retrospective studies and only one of them was multicentered. A total of 202 patients were included in the study and all of these suffered splenic trauma and all patients were hemodynamically stable or responding to fluid resuscitation. Trauma mechanism was blunt in 92.9% of cases and penetrating in 7%. Twenty-one patients underwent LS after failure of angioembolization. Operative time of LS was reported in 6 papers and the mean was 130.7 mins. Length of stay was reported in 7 papers and the mean was 8.12 days. Overall morbidity was 7.7% and the postoperative mortality was cited in 6 articles with an overall percentage of 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy should be considered a valid alternative to open surgery, in hemodynamically stable patients and when performed by an experienced surgeon, such as the minimally invasive trauma surgeon.

Primary angioembolization in liver trauma: major hepatic necrosis as a severe complication of a minimally invasive treatment-a narrative review.

The liver is the second most commonly solid organ injured in blunt abdominal trauma. Liver injuries are classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Injury Scale. The choice of Non-Operative Management is based on generalized clinical patients' conditions combined with the evidence on CT scan imaging. To date, there are no consensus guidelines on appropriate patient selection criteria for those who would benefit from angiography and angioembolization. Major hepatic necrosis is a clinical condition of extended liver damage and is the most common complication after angioembolization. Large amounts of necrotic liver require therapy, but it is unclear if the better technique is debridements supplemented by percutaneous drainage procedures or definitive resection. A systematic review of the literature was performed with a computerized search in a database such as Medline for published papers on the use of angioembolization in trauma patients with hepatic injuries and on the most common complication, the major hepatic necrosis. The systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 3643 patients were included in the study, suffering liver trauma and 1703 (47%) were treated with Non-Operative Management; angioembolization was performed 10% of cases with a variable rate between 2 and 20%. Patients developed different complications. Hepatic necrosis accounted for 16% ranging from 0 to 42%. 74% of patients underwent operative management with a mortality rate of 11%. High-grade liver injuries pose significant challenges to surgeons who care for trauma patients. Many patients can be successfully managed nonoperatively. In hemodynamically stable patients with arterial blush, without other lesions requiring immediate surgery, selective and super-selective AE of the hepatic artery branches is an effective technique. However, these therapies are not without complications and major hepatic necrosis is the most common complication in high-grade injures. Level III, Systematic review.

Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: A new perspective for low rectal cancer treatment. A case series.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer treatment is still a challenging frontier in general surgery, as there is no general agreement on which surgical approach is best for its management. Total mesorectal excision (TME), influenced the practical approach to rectal cancer, and brought a significant improvement on tumor recurrence and patients survival. Robotic transanal surgery is a newer approach to rectal dissection whose purpose is to overcome the limits of the traditional transabdominal approach, improving accuracy of distal dissection and preservation of hypogastric innervation. An increasing interest on this new technique has raised, thanks to the excellent pathological and acceptable short-term clinical outcomes reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three consecutive cases of robotic transanal TME were prospectically performed between May 2017 and October 2017. RESULTS: TME quality was Quirke 3 grade in all cases. Mean operative time was 530 min. None of the patients had intra-operatively or post-operatively complications. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic transanal TME is a very recent procedure. Acclaimed greatest advantage of robotic transanal TME is the facilitation of dissection with an in-line view, which translates in an improved surgical field exposure and visualization. Further investigations are needed to assure the actual value of robotic transanal approach.