[Adrenal surgery : Multidisciplinarity is mandatory]. / Chirurgie surrénalienne : la multidisciplinarité est obligatoire.

Adrenal tumours are rare and their management is challenging. Every patient presenting with adrenal mass or symptoms of hormones hypersecretion should be investigated. The two important questions to be answered are : 1. Is the tumour secreting ? Is the tumour malignant or not ? A complete endocrine work-up and a nativ CT-scan may usually answer these two questions but have to be interpreted by specialists in a multidisciplinary team setting. The decisions about managements of adrenal pathologies do follow international guidelines which are regularly updated. It is not recommended to perform diagnostic or surgical procedure before excluding pheochromocytoma or adrenocortical carcinoma which could have fatal outcome for the patient. Every adrenal mass has to be investigated and should not be made commonplace.

Les tumeurs surrénaliennes sont rares et leur prise en charge est complexe. Tout patient présentant une masse de plus de 1 cm ou des symptômes d'une hypersécrétion hormonale doit être investigué. Les questions à se poser sont : 1) La tumeur est-elle fonctionnelle ? 2) Est-elle maligne ou non ? Un bilan endocrinologique complet et un CT-scan natif pourront souvent répondre à ces interrogations mais devront être interprétés par des spécialistes au sein d'un colloque multidisciplinaire. Les décisions sur la prise en charge se basent sur des recommandations de pratiques cliniques (RCP). Il n'est pas recommandé de procéder à un geste diagnostique ou chirurgical avant d'avoir exclu un phéochromocytome ou un cancer corticosurrénalien car ceci pourrait avoir une issue fatale. Une masse surrénalienne ne doit être en aucun cas banalisée.

Impact of the Ultrasonic scalpel on the amount of drained lymph after axillary or inguinal lymphadenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Seroma formation and lymphoedema are frequently encountered complications after radical lymph node dissection (RLND). Attempts to reduce the lymphatic morbidity include the use of Ultrasonic Scalpel. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the impact of the ultrasonic scalpel on the amount of drained lymph after lymph node dissection. METHODS: Patients listed for a RLND or completion lymph node dissection (CLND) were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial to compare the impact of two surgical dissection techniques (USS versus control) on the amount of drained lymph. The lymph drained in 24 h was collected. Our primary endpoint was to compare the daily amount of drained lymph between the two groups. Secondary endpoints were the comparison of drained lymph with the BMI of the patients, the gender and the surgical site (axilla, groin). RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomly assigned to the USS group or the Control (C) group. No difference was measured in the total amount of lymph drained (USS: 2908 ± 2453 ml vs. C: 3898 ± 5791 ml; p-value = 0.382). The result was also similar after adjusting for gender, age, and BMI. A significant higher amount of lymph was measured after inguinal dissection with USS compared to axillary (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the use of Harmonic scalpel did not influence the amount of lymph drained after RLND and not support the theory that USS induces oversealing of lymphatics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial NCT02476357 . Registered 20 of February 2015.

Prospective Randomized Study to Compare Lymphocele and Lymphorrhea Control Following Inguinal and Axillary Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection With or Without the Use of an Ultrasonic Scalpel.

BACKGROUND: Many attempts to prevent lymphatic complications following therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) have included modifications in surgical techniques through the use of ultrasonic scalpels (USS) or lymphostatic agents. Previous randomized studies that enrolled heterogeneous groups of patients attempted to confirm the efficacy of such techniques. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of the USS following TLND. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2013, patients undergoing inguinal or axillary TLND or completion lymph node dissection after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma or sarcoma were randomized into two surgical dissection technique groups. In the USS dissection arm, surgery was conducted using a USS. These were compared with a control group whereby ligation and monopolar electrocautery was utilized. For axillary dissection, a standardized level III lymphadenectomy was performed. A complete inguinal lymphadenectomy including Cloquet's node was performed, and at the end of the procedure a Redon suction drain was routinely placed in the axilla and groin. The primary endpoint was to compare the time to drain removal in both groups, while the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the rate of complications (infection, fistula, lymphocele formation, wound dehiscence, lymphedema) between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled in this trial; 40 patients were randomly assigned to both the USS group and the control (C) group. No significant differences were observed in terms of duration of drainage (USS: 31 ± 20 vs. C: 32 ± 18; p = 0.83); however, a significantly increased rate of lymphedema (defined as an increased circumference of the operated limb of more than 10 %) was identified in the USS group (USS: 50 % vs. C: 27.5 %; p = 0.04). No other significant differences were recorded for postoperative complications, including surgical site infection (USS: 5 % vs. C: 7.5 %; p = 0.68), lymphatic fistula (USS: 5 % vs. C: 2.5 %; p = 0.62), lymphocele (USS: 32.5 % vs. C: 22.5 %; p = 0.33), and hematoma (USS: 5 % vs. C: 2.5 %; p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: The use of USS failed to offer any significant reduction in length of drain usage and operative complication, but it seems to increase the rate of lymphedema formation.

Prospective assessment of trocar-specific morbidity in laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to challenge the hypothetical advantage of single port laparoscopy (SPL) over conventional laparoscopy by measuring prospectively the morbidity specifically related to conventional trocar sites (TS). METHODS: From November 2010 to December 2011, 300 patients undergoing various laparoscopic procedures were enrolled. Patient, surgery, and trocar characteristics were recorded. We evaluated at three time points (in-hospital and at 1 and 6 months postoperatively) specifically for each TS, pain (Visual Analog Scale), morbidity (infection, hematoma, hernia), and cosmesis (Patient Scar Assessment Score; PSAS). Patients designated their "worst TS," and a composite endpoint "bad TS" was defined to include any adverse outcome at a TS. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,074 TS. Follow-up was >90 %. Pain scores of >3/10 at 1 and 6 months postoperatively, were reported by 3 and 1 % of patients at the 5 mm TS and by 9 and 1 % at the larger TS, respectively (5 mm TS vs larger TS; p = 0.001). Pain was significantly lower for TS located in the lower abdomen than for the upper abdomen or the umbilicus (p = 0.001). The overall complication rate was <1 % and significantly lower for the 5 mm TS (hematoma p = 0.046; infection p = 0.0001). No hernia was found. The overall PSAS score was low and significantly lower for the 5 mm TS (p = 0.0001). Significant predictors of "bad TS" were larger TS (p = 0.001), umbilical position (p = 0.0001), emergency surgery (p = 0.0001), accidental trocar exit (p = 0.022), fascia closure (p = 0.006), and specimen extraction site (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Specific trocar morbidity is low and almost negligible for 5 mm trocars. The umbilicus appears to be an unfavorable TS.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in nonmelanoma skin cancer patients.

The management of lymph nodes in nonmelanoma skin cancer patients is currently still debated. Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma (PEM), and other rare skin neoplasms have a well-known risk to spread to regional lymph nodes. The use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) could be a promising procedure to assess this risk in clinically N0 patients. Metastatic SNs have been observed in 4.5-28% SCC (according to risk factors), in 9-42% MCC, and in 14-57% PEM. We observed overall 30.8% positive SNs in 13 consecutive patients operated for high-risk nonmelanoma skin cancer between 2002 and 2011 in our institution. These high rates support recommendation to implement SLNB for nonmelanoma skin cancer especially for SCC patients. Completion lymph node dissection following positive SNs is also a matter of discussion especially in PEM. It must be remembered that a definitive survival benefit of SLNB in melanoma patients has not been proven yet. However, because of its low morbidity when compared to empiric elective lymph node dissection or radiation therapy of lymphatic basins, SLNB has allowed sparing a lot of morbidity and could therefore be used in nonmelanoma skin cancer patients, even though a significant impact on survival has not been demonstrated.