Bowel preparation for elective colectomy in Crohn's disease: results from a global cohort study using the NSQIP database.

AIM: The role of bowel preparation before colectomy in Crohn's disease patients remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation in patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy. METHOD: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2016 to 2021. A total of 6244 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent elective colectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who received combined colon preparation (mechanical and antibiotic) and those who did not receive any form of bowel preparation. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of anastomotic leak and the occurrence of deep organ infection. Secondary outcomes included all-cause short-term mortality, clinical-related morbidity, ostomy creation, unplanned reoperation, operative time, hospital length of stay and ileus. RESULTS: Combined colon preparation was associated with significantly reduced risks of anastomotic leak (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95, P = 0.021) and deep organ infection (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients who underwent colon preparation had lower rates of ostomy creation, shorter hospital stays and a decreased incidence of ileus. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause short-term mortality or the need for unplanned reoperation between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation may have clinical benefits for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

Surgical and medical outcomes in robotic compared to laparoscopic colectomy global prospective cohort from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the outcomes benefits of robotic approach, when compared to a laparoscopic approach, in colectomy remain limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the value of robotic approach compared to laparoscopic approach in minimally invasive colectomy. DESIGN: Cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). SETTING: This study included data from the NSQIP from 1/2016 to 12/2021. PATIENT: Adult patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. INTERVENTION: Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratios for the incidence of medical and surgical morbidity and overall mortality. RESULTS: Compared to laparoscopic, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant decrease in postoperative morbidity [RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.72-0.96), P < 0.001], a significant reduction in postoperative mortality [RR 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.90), P 0.010)], and in post operative ileus [RR: 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), P < 0.001]. Yet, robotic approach was associated with a significant increase in total operative time despite a significant decrease in total length of stay. No benefit was observed regarding anastomotic leak. LIMITATIONS: Observational nature of the study cannot exclude residual bias. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort from the NSQIP, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative ileus, unplanned conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and overall mortality when compared to laparoscopic colectomy.

INTESTINAL ENDOMETRIOSIS: OUTCOMES FROM A MULTIDISCIPLINARY SPECIALIZED REFERRAL CENTER.

BACKGROUND: Deep penetrating endometriosis (DE) can affect abdominal and pelvic organs like the bowel and bladder, requiring treatment to alleviate symptoms. AIMS: To study and investigate clinical and surgical outcomes in patients diagnosed with DE involving the intestines, aiming to analyze the effectiveness of surgical treatments. METHODS: All cases treated from January 2021 to July 2023 were included, focusing on patients aged 18 years or older with the disease affecting the intestines. Patients without intestinal involvement and those with less than six months of post-surgery follow-up were excluded. Intestinal involvement was defined as direct invasion of the intestinal wall or requiring adhesion lysis for complete resection. Primary outcomes were adhesion lysis, rectal shaving, disc excision (no-colectomy group), and segmental resection (colectomy group) along with surgical complications like anastomotic leak and fistulas, monitored for up to 30 days. RESULTS: Out of 169 patients with DE surgically treated, 76 met the inclusion criteria. No colectomy treatment was selected for 50 (65.7%) patients, while 26 (34.2%) underwent rectosigmoidectomy (RTS). Diarrhea during menstruation was the most prevalent symptom in the RTS group (19.2 vs. 6%, p<0.001). Surgical outcomes indicated longer operative times and hospital stays for the segmental resection group, respectively 186.5 vs. 104 min (p<0.001) and 4 vs. 2 days, (p<0.001). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) had an overall prevalence of 6 (7.9%) cases, without any difference between the groups. There was no mortality reported. Larger lesions and specific symptoms like dyschezia and rectal bleeding were associated with a higher likelihood of RTS. Bayesian regression highlighted diarrhea close to menstruation as a strong predictor of segmental resection. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DE involving the intestines, symptoms such as dyschezia, rectal bleeding, and menstrual period-related diarrhea predict RTS. However, severe complication rates did not differ significantly between the segmental resection group and no-colectomy group.

ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS FOR ABDOMINAL SURGERY: WHEN TO RECOMMEND? BRAZILIAN COLLEGE OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY POSITION PAPER.

BACKGROUND: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is an essential component of perioperative care. The use of prophylactic regimens of antibiotics is a well-established practice that is encouraged to be implemented in preoperative/perioperative protocols in order to prevent surgical site infections. AIMS: The aim of this study was to emphasize the crucial aspects of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis is defined as the administration of antibiotics before contamination occurs, given with the intention of preventing infection by achieving tissue levels of antibiotics above the minimum inhibitory concentration at the time of surgical incision. It is indicated for clean operations with prosthetic materials or in cases where severe consequences may arise in the event of an infection. It is also suitable for all clean-contaminated and contaminated operations. The spectrum of action is determined by the pathogens present at the surgical site. Ideally, a single intravenous bolus dose should be administered within 60 min before the surgical incision. An additional dose should be given in case of hemorrhage or prolonged surgery, according to the half-life of the drug. Factors such as the patient's weight, history of allergies, and the likelihood of colonization by resistant bacteria should be considered. Compliance with institutional protocols enhances the effectiveness of antibiotic use. CONCLUSION: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced rates of surgical site infection, hospital stay, and morbimortality.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration.

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

Reporting guidelines for surgical technique could be improved: a scoping review and a call for action.

OBJECTIVES: To identify reporting guidelines related to surgical technique and propose recommendations for areas that require improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A protocol-guided scoping review was conducted. A literature search of MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, Google Scholar, and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations was conducted to identify surgical technique reporting guidelines published up to December 31, 2021. RESULTS: We finally included 55 surgical technique reporting guidelines, vascular surgery (n = 18, 32.7%) was the most common among the clinical specialties covered. The included guidelines generally showed a low degree of international and multidisciplinary cooperation. Few guidelines provided a detailed development process (n = 14, 25.5%), conducted a systematic literature review (n = 13, 23.6%), used the Delphi method (n = 4, 7.3%), or described post-publication strategy (n = 6, 10.9%). The vast majority guidelines focused on the reporting of intraoperative period (n = 50, 90.9%). However, of the guidelines requiring detailed descriptions of surgical technique methodology (n = 43, 78.2%), most failed to provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate description. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates significant deficiencies in the development methodology and practicality of reporting guidelines for surgical technique. A standardized reporting guideline that is developed rigorously and focuses on details of surgical technique may serve as a necessary impetus for change.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique.

Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial Registration: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of this disease. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials may contribute to the body of evidence and help surgeons select which patients may benefit from surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of nonoperative management vs appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted using indexed sources (Embase and PubMed) to search for published randomized clinical trials in English comparing nonoperative management with appendectomy in adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. To increase sensitivity, no limits were set for outcomes reported, sex, or year of publication. All nonrandomized or quasi-randomized trials were excluded, and validated primers were used. Study Selection: Among 1504 studies imported for screening, 805 were duplicates, and 595 were excluded for irrelevancy. A further 96 were excluded after full-text review, mainly owing to wrong study design or inclusion of pediatric populations. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Meta-extraction was conducted with independent extraction by multiple reviewers using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled by a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment success and major adverse effects at 30 days' follow-up. Results: The main outcome (treatment success proportion at 30 days of follow-up) was not significantly different in the operative and nonoperative management cohorts (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66-1.11). Likewise, the percentage of major adverse effects was similar in both cohorts (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.79). However, in the nonoperative management group, length of stay was significantly longer (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70), and a median cumulative incidence of 18% of recurrent appendicitis was observed. Conclusions and Relevance: These results point to the general safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, this strategy may be associated with an increase in duration of hospital stay and a higher rate of recurrent appendicitis. This meta-analysis may help inform decision-making in nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Evidence on reporting guidelines for surgical technique in clinical disciplines: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol. DISCUSSION: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols.

Developing the surgical technique reporting checklist and standards: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Standardized and transparent reporting of surgical technique is the cornerstone of effective dissemination, implementation and improvement. However, current reporting of surgical techniques is inadequate. The existing guidelines potentially applied to guide surgical technique reporting are with a minimal highlight of the surgical technique, lack requirements explaining what extent and dimensions need to be described in detail, or are unlikely to extrapolate to a wide range of surgical techniques. This study aims to formulate a rigorous protocol to develop a surgical technique reporting checklist and standards (SUPER) that defines what a clear, comprehensive and detailed surgical technique report should be contained. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the classic guidance for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR network. RESULTS: The development team will consist of surgeons (~80%), methodologists, and journal editors. The draft checklist sources will include a scoping review of existing reporting guidelines related to surgical technique, surgical technique articles from 15 top journals published in the last year, and brainstorming by the multidisciplinary development team. The final SUPER checklist will be formed after three rounds of Delphi surveys, one round of face-to-face meeting, and a month-long pilot test. The SUPER checklist will be published as open-access and be used in combination with existing reporting guidelines related to surgical techniques (e.g., IDEAL). This protocol will steer the SUPER checklist's development, allowing us to further elaborate surgical technique reporting for all surgical specialties, and enabling a more favorable experience for surgeons, nurses, medical students, residents, editors, and reviewers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at the EQUATOR network on December 18th, 2020. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/.

BRAZILIAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES (PART 2): UPDATE ON TREATMENT.

BACKGROUND: : The II Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer of the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association BGCA (Part 1) was recently published. On this occasion, countless specialists working in the treatment of this disease expressed their opinion in the face of the statements presented. AIM: : To present the BGCA Guidelines (Part 2) regarding indications for surgical treatment, operative techniques, extension of resection and multimodal treatment. METHODS: To formulate these guidelines, the authors carried out an extensive and current review regarding each declaration present in the II Consensus, using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases initially with the following descriptors: gastric cancer, gastrectomy, lymphadenectomy, multimodal treatment. In addition, each statement was classified according to the level of evidence and degree of recommendation. RESULTS: : Of the 43 statements present in this study, 11 (25,6%) were classified with level of evidence A, 20 (46,5%) B and 12 (27,9%) C. Regarding the degree of recommendation, 18 (41,9%) statements obtained grade of recommendation 1, 14 (32,6%) 2a, 10 (23,3%) 2b e one (2,3%) 3. CONCLUSION: : The guidelines complement of the guidelines presented here allows surgeons and oncologists who work to combat gastric cancer to offer the best possible treatment, according to the local conditions available.

Surgical results of remnant gastric cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: remnant gastric cancer (RGC) develops five years or later after previous resection for benign or malignant lesion. The treatment is performed through completion total gastrectomy (CTG) with radical lymphadenectomy. Some reports consider this procedure may be associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate surgical results and survival after CTG in patients with RGC. METHODS: 54 patients who underwent CTG between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study. As a comparison group 215 patients with primary gastric cancer (PGC) who underwent total gastrectomy (TG) in the same period were selected. RESULTS: among the initial characteristics, age (68.0 vs. 60.5; p<0.001), hemoglobin values (10.9 vs. 12.3; p<0.001) and body mass index (22.5 vs. 24.6; p=0.005) were different between the RGC and PGC groups, respectively. The most frequent postoperative complications were related to pulmonary complications, infection and fistula in both groups. There was a higher incidence of esophagojejunal fistula in the CTG group (14.8% vs 6.5%, p=0.055). Perioperative mortality was higher in RGC patients (9.3% vs. 5.1%), but without significance (p=0.329). Hospital length of stay, postoperative complications graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification, mortality at 30 and 90 days were not different between groups. There was no significant difference in disease-free and overall survival between RGC and PGC groups. CONCLUSION: despite previous reports, surgical results and survival were similar between groups. Higher risk of esophagojejunal fistula must be considered.

Oncological Robot-Assisted Gastrectomy: Technical Aspects and Ongoing Data.

Robotic surgery through the da Vinci Surgical System has been widely spread for many procedures across the globe for several years. At the same time, robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) remains mostly available only in specialized centers in minimally invasive surgery and stomach neoplasm. The robotic platform has been introduced to overcome possible drawbacks of the laparoscopic approach. The safety and the feasibility of robotic radical gastrectomy have been reported in many retrospective case series and nonrandomized prospective studies. However, the superiority of robotic gastrectomy over the laparoscopic access has not yet been proven. This study aimed to report the technical aspects of robot-assisted gastrectomy for GC as well as the latest evidence on this subject.

II BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS ON GASTRIC CANCER BY THE BRAZILIAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOCIATION.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the first Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer (GC) in 2012 carried out by the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association, new concepts on diagnosis, staging, treatment and follow-up have been incorporated. AIM: This new consensus is to promote an update to professionals working in the fight against GC and to provide guidelines for the management of patients with this condition. METHODS: Fifty-nine experts answered 67 statements regarding the diagnosis, staging, treatment and prognosis of GC with five possible alternatives: 1) fully agree; 2) partially agree; 3) undecided; 4) disagree and 5) strongly disagree A consensus was adopted when at least 80% of the sum of the answers "fully agree" and "partially agree" was reached. This article presents only the responses of the participating experts. Comments on each statement, as well as a literature review, will be presented in future publications. RESULTS: Of the 67 statements, there was consensus in 50 (74%). In 10 declarations, there was 100% agreement. CONCLUSION: The gastric cancer treatment has evolved considerably in recent years. This consensus gathers consolidated principles in the last decades, new knowledge acquired recently, as well as promising perspectives on the management of this disease.

BRAZILIAN GASTRIC CANCER ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES (PART 1): AN UPDATE ON DIAGNOSIS, STAGING, ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT AND FOLLOW-UP.

BACKGROUND: The II Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer by the Brazilian Gastric Cancer Association (ABCG) was recently published. On this occasion, several experts in gastric cancer expressed their opinion before the statements presented. AIM: To present the ABCG Guidelines (part 1) regarding the diagnosis, staging, endoscopic treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer patients. METHODS: To forge these Guidelines, the authors carried out an extensive and current review regarding each statement present in the II Consensus, using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases with the following descriptors: gastric cancer, staging, endoscopic treatment and follow-up. In addition, each statement was classified according to the level of evidence and degree of recommendation. RESULTS: Of the 24 statements, two (8.3%) were classified with level of evidence A, 11 (45.8%) with B and 11 (45.8%) with C. As for the degree of recommendation, six (25%) statements obtained grade of recommendation 1, nine (37.5%) recommendation 2a, six (25%) 2b and three (12.5%) grade 3. CONCLUSION: The guidelines presented here are intended to assist professionals working in the fight against gastric cancer with relevant and current information, granting them to be applied in the daily medical practice.

Subcutaneous Videosurgery for Abdominal Wall Defects: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal wall defects (AWDs) include recti diastasis and midline hernias (umbilical, epigastric, and incisional). In the coexistence of such fascia defects, simultaneous repair is recommended. Conventional and hybrid techniques have been reported as an option of approach. This study aims to present the results of a total minimal invasive access to treat AWD with mesh reinforcement (subcutaneous videosurgery for abdominal wall defects [SVAWD] technique). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective observational study included patients with small/medium midline incisional hernia and/or multiple AWDs (symptomatic umbilicus and/or an epigastric hernia and/or abdominal rectus diastasis >2 cm) operated between August 2016 and February 2018. The exclusion criteria were, namely, fascia defects >10 cm, complex hernias, excess of skin and/or subcutaneous abdominal fatty tissue, and body mass index >35 kg/m2. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were treated by SVAWD technique, with a median follow-up of 14 (range 6-22) months. The mean size of all fascia defects was 7.46 cm (range 4.5-10.5). Surgical site occurrence was identified in three (14.3%) patients and surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention in two (9.5%). Diabetes mellitus was the only predictor factor for higher intraoperative bleeding (R2 = 0.63, P = .025). Fibrin sealant (used for mesh fixation) and transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block with ropivacaine 0.2% were associated with less oral analgesics intake (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) and fewer complications (P = .005 and P = .034, respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite the low number of patients operated, the subcutaneous approach presented has proven to be safe, feasible, and effective, as no major complications and relapse occurred. Still, fibrin sealant and TAP block were associated with fewer complications and less oral analgesics intake.

CONVERSION THERAPY FOR GASTRIC CANCER: EXPANDING THE TREATMENT POSSIBILITIES.

BACKGROUND: Conversion therapy in gastric cancer (GC) is defined as the use of chemotherapy/radiotherapy followed by surgical resection with curative intent of a tumor that was prior considered unresectable or oncologically incurable. AIM: To evaluate the results of conversion therapy in the treatment of GC. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all GC surgeries between 2009 and 2018. Patients who received any therapy before surgery were further identified to define the conversion group. RESULTS: Out of 1003 surgeries performed for GC, 113 cases underwent neoadjuvant treatment and 16 (1.6%) were considered as conversion therapy. The main indication for treatment was: T4b lesions (n=10), lymph node metastasis (n=4), peritoneal carcinomatosis and hepatic metastasis in one case each. The diagnosis was made by imaging in 14 cases (75%) and during surgical procedure in four (25%). The most commonly used chemotherapy regimens were XP and mFLOX. Major surgical complications occurred in four cases (25%) and one (6.3%) died. After an average follow-up of 20 months, 11 patients (68.7%) had recurrence and nine (56.3%) died. Prolonged recurrence-free survival over 40 months occurred in two cases. CONCLUSION: Conversion therapy may offer the possibility of prolonged survival for a group of GC patients initially considered beyond therapeutic possibility.

Gastric partitioning for the treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is one of the main complications in stage IV gastric cancer patients. This condition is usually managed by gastrojejunostomy (GJ). However, gastric partitioning (GP) has been described as an alternative to overcoming possible drawbacks of GJ, such as delayed gastric emptying and tumor bleeding. AIM: To compare the outcomes of patients who underwent GP and GJ for malignant GOO. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 60 patients who underwent palliative gastric bypass for unresectable distal gastric cancer with GOO from 2009 to 2018. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics including age, nutritional status, body mass index, and performance status were evaluated. Obstructive symptoms were graded according to GOO score (GOOS). Surgical outcomes evaluated included duration of the procedure, surgical complications, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Acceptance of oral diet after the procedure, weight gain, and overall survival were the long-term outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: GP was performed in 30 patients and conventional GJ in the other 30 patients. The mean follow-up was 9.2 mo. Forty-nine (81.6%) patients died during that period. All variables were similar between groups, with the exception of worse performance status in GP patients. The mean operative time was higher in the GP group (161.2 vs 85.2 min, P < 0.001). There were no differences in postoperative complications and surgical mortality between groups. The median overall survival was 7 and 8.4 mo for the GP and GJ groups, respectively (P = 0.610). The oral acceptance of soft solids (GOOS 2) and low residue or full diet (GOOS 3) were reached by 28 (93.3%) GP patients and 22 (75.9%) GJ patients (P = 0.080). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that GOOS 2 and GOOS 3 were the main prognostic factors for survival (hazard ratio: 8.90, 95% confidence interval: 3.38-23.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: GP is a safe and effective procedure to treat GOO. Compared to GJ, it provides similar surgical outcomes with a trend to better solid diet acceptance by patients.

TOTAL OMENTECTOMY IN GASTRIC CANCER SURGERY: IS IT ALWAYS NECESSARY?

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, total omentectomy is performed along with gastric resection and extended lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer (GC) surgery. However, solid evidences regarding its oncologic benefit is still scarce. AIM: To evaluate the incidence of metastatic omental lymph nodes (LN) in patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for GC, as well as its risk factors and patients' outcomes. METHODS: All consecutive patients submitted to D2/modified D2 gastrectomy due to gastric adenocarcinoma from March 2009 to April 2016 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective collected database. RESULTS: Of 284 patients included, five (1.8%) patients had metastatic omental LN (one: pT3N3bM0; two: pT4aN3bM0; one: pT4aN2M0 and one pT4bN3bM0). Four of them deceased and one was under palliative chemotherapy due relapse. LN metastases in the greater omentum significantly correlated with tumor's size (p=0.018), N stage (p<0.001), clinical stage (p=0.022), venous invasion growth (p=0.003), recurrence (p=0.006), site of recurrence (peritoneum: p=0.008; liver: p=0.023; ovary: p=0.035) and death (p=0.008). CONCLUSION: The incidence of metastatic omental LN of patients undergoing radical gastrectomy due to GC is extremely low. Total omentectomy may be avoided in tumors smaller than 5.25 cm and T1/T2 tumors. However, the presence of lymph node metastases in the greater omentum is associated with recurrence in the peritoneum, liver, ovary and death.

Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Mid-Term Results and Current Evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Although the first laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 1991, there was a long delay until it was incorporated into the regular practice of western surgeons. In Brazil, there are only few case series reported and data on its safety and efficacy along with mid- and long-term results are desired. OBJECTIVE: Present the mid-term results of laparoscopic gastrectomy with curative intent in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma and review the current evidence on the therapy of this neoplasia with the laparoscopic access. METHODS: Patients who underwent D2 laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 59.2 years and the mean body mass index was 24.2 kg/m2. Subtotal gastrectomy was performed in 73.9%. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 36.7, increased lymph node count and shorter operative time were observed in the last 34 cases. Median hospital stay was 8 days. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (31.9%) cases. Surgical mortality was 4.3%. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic gastrectomy can be performed safely with excellent short- and mid-term results. As experience increases, surgical duration is reduced and lymph node count rises.