Towards a tailored approach for patients with acute diverticulitis and abscess formation. The DivAbsc2023 multicentre case-control study.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre case-control study aimed to identify risk factors associated with non-operative treatment failure for patients with CT scan Hinchey Ib-IIb and WSES Ib-IIa diverticular abscesses. METHODS: This study included a cohort of adult patients experiencing their first episode of CT-diagnosed diverticular abscess, all of whom underwent initial non-operative treatment comprising either antibiotics alone or in combination with percutaneous drainage. The cohort was stratified based on the outcome of non-operative treatment, specifically identifying those who required emergency surgical intervention as cases of treatment failure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors associated with the failure of non-operative treatment was employed. RESULTS: Failure of conservative treatment occurred for 116 patients (27.04%). CT scan Hinchey classification IIb (aOR 2.54, 95%CI 1.61;4.01, P < 0.01), tobacco smoking (aOR 2.01, 95%CI 1.24;3.25, P < 0.01), and presence of air bubbles inside the abscess (aOR 1.59, 95%CI 1.00;2.52, P = 0.04) were independent predictors of failure. In the subgroup of patients with abscesses > 5 cm, percutaneous drainage was not associated with the risk of failure or success of the non-operative treatment (aOR 2.78, 95%CI - 0.66;3.70, P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative treatment is generally effective for diverticular abscesses. Tobacco smoking's role as an independent risk factor for treatment failure underscores the need for targeted behavioural interventions in diverticular disease management. IIb Hinchey diverticulitis patients, particularly young smokers, require vigilant monitoring due to increased risks of treatment failure and septic progression. Further research into the efficacy of image-guided percutaneous drainage should involve randomized, multicentre studies focussing on homogeneous patient groups.

Economic value of diastasis repair with the use of mesh compared to no intervention in Italy.

AIM: Rectus abdominal diastasis (RAD) can cause mainly incontinence and lower-back pain. Despite its high incidence, there is no consensus regarding surgical indication. We aimed at comparing RAD repair (minimally invasive technique with mesh implant) with no treatment (standard of care - SOC) through cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy. METHODS: A model was developed including social costs and productivity losses derived by the online administration of a socio-economic questionnaire, including the EuroQol for the assessment of quality of life. Costs for the NHS were based on reimbursement tariffs. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, estimated costs were 64,115€ for SOC and 46,541€ for RAD repair in the societal perspective; QALYs were 19.55 and 25.75 for the two groups, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, RAD repair showed an additional cost per patient of 5,104€ compared to SOC, leading to an ICUR of 824€. RAD repair may be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to SOC depending on the perspective considered. Considering a current scenario of 100% SOC, an increased diffusion of RAD repair from 2 to 10% in the next 5 years would lead to an incremental cost of 184,147,624€ for the whole society (87% borne by the NHS) and to incremental 16,155 QALYs. CONCLUSION: In light of the lack of economic evaluations for minimally invasive RAD repair, the present study provides relevant clinical and economic evidence to help improving the decision-making process and allocating scarce resources between competing ends.

Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Conventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach. METHODS: Per PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel-Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" assessment tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Colonic Resection, Stoma, or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: the CROSCO-1 study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. There are several causes of a mechanical left bowel obstructive but CRC accounts for approximately 50% of cases and in 10-30% of whom it is the presenting syndrome. In most cases, the left colon is involved. At present, the range of therapeutic alternatives in the management of obstructive left CRC in emergency conditions (primary resection vs. staged resection with applied self-expanding metallic stents) is broad, whereas internationally validated clinical recommendations in each condition are still lacking. This enormous variability affects the scientific evidence on both the immediate and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes. METHODS: CROSCO-1 (Colonic Resection, Stoma or Self-expanding Metal Stents for Obstructive Left Colon Cancer) study is a national, multi-center, prospective observational study intending to compare the clinical results of all these therapeutic regimens in a cohort of patients treated for obstructive left-sided CRC. RESULTS: The primary aim of the CROSCO-1 study is the 1-year stoma rate of patients undergoing primary emergency surgical resection (Hartmann procedure or primary resection and anastomosis) compared with patients undergoing staged resection. Secondary outcomes are 30-day and 90-day major morbidity and mortality, 1-year quality of life and the timing of chemotherapy initiation in the two groups. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The results of a large prospective cohort study which will analyze what really happens in the common clinical practice of managing patients with obstructive left CRC will have the aim of understanding which is the best strategy in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Indeed, the CROSCO-1 study will analyze the early surgical outcomes for patients with obstructed left CRC. Future CROSCO studies will follow in which, instead, we will evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of the two treatment strategies.

Minimally invasive versus open adrenalectomy for adrenocortical carcinoma: the keys surgical factors influencing the outcomes-a collective overview.

PURPOSE: Adrenocortical carcinoma (A.C.C.) is a rare tumour, often discovered at an advanced stage and associated with a poor prognosis. Surgery is the treatment of choice. We aimed to review the different surgical approaches trying to compare their outcome. METHODS: This comprehensive review has been carried out according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Among all studies identified, 18 were selected for the review. A total of 14,600 patients were included in the studies, of whom 4421 were treated by mini-invasive surgery (M.I.S.). Ten studies reported 531 conversions from M.I.S. to an open approach (OA) (12%). Differences were reported for operative times as well as for postoperative complications more often in favour of OA, whereas differences for hospitalization time in favour of M.I.S. Some studies showed an R0 resection rate from 77 to 89% for A.C.C. treated by OA and 67 to 85% for tumours treated by M.I.S. The overall recurrence rate ranged from 24 to 29% for A.C.C. treated by OA and from 26 to 36% for tumours treated by M.I.S. CONCLUSIONS: OA should still be considered the standard surgical management of A.C.C. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy has shown shorter hospital stays and faster recovery compared to open surgery. However, the laparoscopic approach resulted in the worst recurrence rate, time to recurrence and cancer-specific mortality in stages I-III ACC. The robotic approach had similar complications rate and hospital stays, but there are still scarce results about oncologic follow-up.

Use of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus electrocautery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: According to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD - 1.33; 95% CI - 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables. CONCLUSIONS: HEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica).

BACKGROUND: The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices. METHODS: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings. RESULTS: The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.

Fluorescence-guided nodal navigation during colectomy for colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence is an emerging technique in the surgical field. Among its various applications, it allows surgeons to have real-time visualization of the lymphatic drainage of an organ. The primary outcome of our study is the feasibility and safety of ICG-guided colorectal surgery. Our secondary outcome is the efficacy of ICG-guided lymphadenectomy and whether or not ICG positivity correlates with the identification of nodal metastasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center prospective study including 32 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer. For each case, ICG was injected into the tumor area either prior to or during surgery. Tumor specimens and excised lymph nodes were analyzed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. RESULTS: In all patients, ICG injected in the tumor area allowed clear visualization of the lymphatic drainage. A total of 499 lymph nodes were collected, with a mean of 16 per patient. Fifty ICG positive lymph nodes outside the standard lymphadenectomy zone were examined; however, none of the nodes showed signs of nodal metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: ICG-guided colorectal surgery is safe, feasible and easily reproducible, with a relatively low cost and no radiation exposure. ICG can help the surgeon to visualize the anatomical structures. We did not find an oncological diagnostic advantage in the use of ICG-guided nodal navigation.

Oral neomycin and bacitracin are effective in preventing surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, randomized, parallel, single-blinded trial (COLORAL-1).

Several regimens of oral and intravenous antibiotics (OIVA) have been proposed with contradicting results, and the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is still controversial. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing Surgical Site Infections (SSI) in elective colorectal surgery. In a multicentre trial, we randomized patients undergoing elective colorectal resection surgery, comparing the effectiveness of OIVA versus intravenous antibiotics (IVA) regimens to prevent SSI as the primary outcome (NCT04438655). In addition to intravenous Amoxicillin/Clavulanic, patients in the OIVA group received Oral Neomycin and Bacitracin 24 h before surgery. MBP was administered according to local habits which were not changed for the study. The trial was terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many centers failed to participate as well as the pandemic changed the rules for engaging patients. Two-hundred and four patients were enrolled (100 in the OIVA and 104 in the IVA group); 3 SSIs (3.4%) were registered in the OIVA and 14 (14.4%) in the IVA group (p = 0.010). No difference was observed in terms of anastomotic leak. Multivariable analysis indicated that OIVA reduced the rate of SSI (OR 0.21 / 95% CI 0.06-0.78 / p = 0.019), while BMI is a risk factor of SSI (OR 1.15 / 95% CI 1.01-1.30 p = 0.039). Subgroup analysis indicated that 0/22 patients who underwent OIVA/MBP + vs 13/77 IVA/MBP- experienced an SSI (p = 0.037). The early termination of the study prevents any conclusion regarding the interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, Oral Neomycin/Bacitracin and intravenous beta-lactam/beta-lactamases inhibitors seem to reduce SSI after colorectal resections, although not affecting the anastomotic leak in this trial. The role of MBP requires more investigation.

ICG fluorescence imaging in colorectal surgery: a snapshot from the ICRAL study group.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence-guided visualization is a recently proposed technology in colorectal surgery. Possible uses include evaluating perfusion, navigating lymph nodes and searching for hepatic metastases and peritoneal spread. Despite the absence of high-level evidence, this technique has gained considerable popularity among colorectal surgeons due to its significant reliability, safety, ease of use and relatively low cost. However, the actual use of this technique in daily clinical practice has not been reported to date. METHODS: This survey was conducted on April 2020 among 44 centers dealing with colorectal diseases and participating in the Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group. Surgeons were approximately equally divided based on geographical criteria from multiple Italian regions, with a large proportion based in public (89.1%) and nonacademic (75.7%) centers. They were invited to answer an online survey to snapshot their current behaviors regarding the use of fluorescence-guided visualization in colorectal surgery. Questions regarding technological availability, indications and techniques, personal approaches and feelings were collected in a 23-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaire replies were received from 37 institutions and partially answered by 8, as this latter group of centers do not implement fluorescence technology (21.6%). Out of the remaining 29 centers (78,4%), fluorescence is utilized in all laparoscopic colorectal resections by 72.4% of surgeons and only for selected cases by the remaining 27.6%, while 62.1% of respondents do not use fluorescence in open surgery (unless the perfusion is macroscopically uncertain with the naked eye, in which case 41.4% of them do). The survey also suggests that there is no agreement on dilution, dosing and timing, as many different practices are adopted based on personal judgment. Only approximately half of the surgeons reported a reduced leak rate with fluorescence perfusion assessment, but 65.5% of them strongly believe that this technique will become a minimum requirement for colorectal surgery in the future. CONCLUSION: The survey confirms that fluorescence is becoming a widely used technique in colorectal surgery. However, both the indications and methods still vary considerably; furthermore, the surgeons' perceptions of the results are insufficient to consider this technology essential. This survey emphasizes the need for further research to reach recommendations based on solid scientific evidence.

Midline incision as specimen extraction site: always to avoid? Single center experience about the use of enlarged umbilical trocar access.

BACKGROUND: By the years several locations for specimen extraction site (SES) during laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease have been proposed and many studies have focused their attention on outcomes and complications, but the "best" SES has not yet been found. METHODS: In this paper we describe our experience using the enlargement of umbilical trocar access as SES during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: at the end of the intracorporal phase we removed Hasson's trocar from the umbilicus, therefore the skin and fascial incision is enlarged up to 5-6 cm. In our work we considered 36 patients extracted from our database from 2017 with at least one year follow-up. RESULTS: We do not report any skin closure dehiscence or surgical site infection (SSI) and in only one patient (2.7%) occurred incisional hernia (IH). The results of our study are good. Important to reach this goal are an accurate wound closure at the end of the surgery, and an optimal perioperative management. CONCLUSIONS: The enlargement of umbilical access could enable several postoperative advantages such as a fewer painful area, a reduced number of incisions with a potential risk of SSI, and incisional hernia compared to traditional SES options. However, further studies investigating that are needed. In the future, other incisions will not be necessary except the normal trocar site ones.

Management and 1-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze different types of management and one-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage (AL) after elective colorectal resection. METHODS: All patients with anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery with anastomosis (76/1,546; 4.9%), with the exclusion of cases with proximal diverting stoma, were followed-up for at least one year. Primary endpoints were as follows: composite outcome of one-year mortality and/or unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission and additional morbidity rates. Secondary endpoints were as follows: length of stay (LOS), one-year persistent stoma rate, and rate of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT). RESULTS: One-year mortality rate was 10.5% and unplanned ICU admission rate was 30.3%. Risk factors of the composite outcome included age (aOR = 1.08 per 1-year increase, p = 0.002) and anastomotic breakdown with end stoma at reoperation (aOR = 2.77, p = 0.007). Additional morbidity rate was 52.6%: risk factors included open versus laparoscopic reoperation (aOR = 4.38, p = 0.03) and ICU admission (aOR = 3.63, p = 0.05). Median (IQR) overall LOS was 20 days (14-26), higher in the subgroup of patients reoperated without stoma. At 1 year, a stoma persisted in 32.0% of patients, higher in the open (41.2%) versus laparoscopic (12.5%) reoperation group (p = 0.04). Only 4 out of 18 patients (22.2%) were able to RIOT. CONCLUSION: Mortality and/or unplanned ICU admission rates after AL are influenced by increasing age and by anastomotic breakdown at reoperation; additional morbidity rates are influenced by unplanned ICU admission and by laparoscopic approach to reoperation, the latter also reducing permanent stoma and failure to RIOT rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03560180.

Current status on the adoption of high energy devices in Italy: An Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies (SICE) national survey.

BACKGROUND: In the past three decades, different High Energy Devices (HED) have been introduced in surgical practice to improve the efficiency of surgical procedures. HED allow vessel sealing, coagulation and transection as well as an efficient tissue dissection. This survey was designed to verify the current status on the adoption of HED in Italy. METHODS: A survey was conducted across Italian general surgery units. The questionnaire was composed of three sections (general information, elective surgery, emergency surgery) including 44 questions. Only one member per each surgery unit was allowed to complete the questionnaire. For elective procedures, the survey included questions on thyroid surgery, lower and upper GI surgery, proctologic surgery, adrenal gland surgery, pancreatic and hepatobiliary surgery, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall surgery and breast surgery. Appendectomy, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and bowel obstruction due to adhesions were considered for emergency surgery. The list of alternatives for every single question included a percentage category as follows: " < 25%, 25-50%, 51-75% or > 75%", both for open and minimally-invasive surgery. RESULTS: A total of 113 surgical units completed the questionnaire. The reported use of HED was high both in open and minimally-invasive upper and lower GI surgery. Similarly, HED were widely used in minimally-invasive pancreatic and adrenal surgery. The use of HED was wider in minimally-invasive hepatic and biliary tree surgery compared to open surgery, whereas the majority of the respondents reported the use of any type of HED in less than 25% of elective cholecystectomies. HED were only rarely employed also in the majority of emergency open and laparoscopic procedures, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and adhesiolysis. Similarly, very few respondents declared to use HED in abdominal wall surgery and proctology. The distribution of the most used type of HED varied among the different surgical interventions. US HED were mostly used in thyroid, upper GI, and adrenal surgery. A relevant use of H-US/RF devices was reported in lower GI, pancreatic, hepatobiliary and breast surgery. RF HED were the preferred choice in proctology. CONCLUSION: HED are extensively used in minimally-invasive elective surgery involving the upper and lower GI tract, liver, pancreas and adrenal gland. Nowadays, reasons for choosing a specific HED in clinical practice rely on several aspects, including surgeon's preference, economic features, and specific drawbacks of the energy employed.

Early use of low dose tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study with a complete follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia with severe respiratory failure represents the principal cause of death in COVID-19, where hyper-inflammation plays an important role in lung damage. An effective treatment aiming at reducing the inflammation without preventing virus clearance is thus urgently needed. Tocilizumab, an anti-soluble IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody, has been proposed for treatment of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study at the Montichiari Hospital, Brescia, Italy, was conducted. We included consecutive patients with COVID-19 related pneumonia at the early stage of respiratory failure, all treated with a standard protocol (hydroxychloroquine 400 mg daily, lopinavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 200 mg per day). We compared survival rate and clinical status in a cohort of patients who received additional treatment with tocilizumab once (either 400 mg intravenous or 324 mg subcutaneous) with a retrospective cohort of patients who did not receive tocilizumab (referred to as the standard treatment group). All outcomes were assessed at the end of the follow-up, that correspond to death or complete recovery and discharge from the hospital. FINDINGS: 158 patients were included, 90 of which received tocilizumab. 34 out of 68 (50%) patients in the standard treatment group and 7 out of 90 (7.7%) in the tocilizumab group died. Tocilizumab significantly improved survival compared to standard care (multivariate HR: 0.057; 95% C.I = 0.017- 0.187, p < 0.001). No differences between the two administration routes of tocilizumab were observed. No tocilizumab-related infections and/or side effects were observed. INTERPRETATION: Early treatment with tocilizumab could be helpful to prevent excessive hyper-inflammation and death in COVID-19 related pneumonia. Low dose administration of tocilizumab is not associated with adverse events. FUNDING: none.

Intraoperative use of fluorescence with indocyanine green reduces anastomotic leak rates in rectal cancer surgery: an individual participant data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence imaging by means of Indocyanine green (ICG) has been applied to intraoperatively determine the perfusion of the anastomosis. The purpose of this Individual Participant Database meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness in decreasing the incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) after rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.gov, EU Clinical Trials and ISRCTN registries on September 1st, 2019. We considered eligible those studies comparing the assessment of anastomotic perfusion during rectal cancer surgery by intraoperative use of ICG fluorescence compared with standard practice. We defined as primary outcome the incidence of AL at 30 days after surgery. The studies were assessed for quality by means of the ROBINS-I and the Cochrane risk tools. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) using the Individual patient data analysis, restricted to rectal lesions, according to original treatment allocation. RESULTS: The review of the literature and international registries produced 15 published studies and 5 ongoing trials, for 9 of which the authors accepted to share individual participant data. 314 patients from two randomized trials, 452 from three prospective series and 564 from 4 non-randomized studies were included. Fluorescence imaging significantly reduced the incidence of AL (OR 0.341; 95% CI 0.220-0.530; p < 0.001), independent of age, gender, BMI, tumour and anastomotic distance from the anal verge and neoadjuvant therapy. Also, overall morbidity and reintervention rate were positively influenced by the use of ICG. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of AL may be reduced when ICG fluorescence imaging is used to assess the perfusion of a colorectal anastomosis. Limitations relate to the consistent number of non-randomized studies included and their heterogeneity in defining and assessing AL. Ongoing large randomized studies will help to determine the exact role of routine ICG fluorescence imaging may decrease the incidence of AL in surgery for rectal cancer.

Colorectal surgery in Italy during the Covid19 outbreak: a survey from the iCral study group.

BACKGROUND: The COVID19 pandemic had a deep impact on healthcare facilities in Italy, with profound reorganization of surgical activities. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group collecting 43 Italian surgical centers experienced in colorectal surgery from multiple regions performed a quick survey to make a snapshot of the current situation. METHODS: A 25-items questionnaire was sent to the 43 principal investigators of the iCral study group, with questions regarding qualitative and quantitative aspects of the surgical activity before and after the COVID19 outbreak. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the centers were involved in the treatment of COVID19 cases. Intensive care units (ICU) beds were partially or totally reallocated for the treatment of COVID19 cases in 72% of the hospitals. Elective colorectal surgery for malignancy was stopped or delayed in nearly 30% of the centers, with less than 20% of them still scheduling elective colorectal resections for frail and comorbid patients needing postoperative ICU care. A significant reduction of the number of colorectal resections during the time span from January to March 2020 was recorded, with significant delay in treatment in more than 50% of the centers. DISCUSSION: Our survey confirms that COVID19 outbreak is severely affecting the activity of colorectal surgery centers participating to iCral study group. This could impact the activity of surgical centers for many months after the end of the emergency.

Correction to: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospectivetrial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo­colic side­to­side anastomosis.

Due to an error in production the members of SICE CoDIG (Colon Dx Italian Group) listed in the Acknowledgments were not tagged correctly as authors in the XML of this article. This listing is presented again here.

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospective trial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo-colic side-to-side anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered appropriate for the surgical treatment of both malignant and benign diseases of right colon, there is still debate about how to perform the ileo-colic anastomosis. The ColonDxItalianGroup (CoDIG) was designed as a cohort, observational, prospective, multi-center national study with the aims of evaluating the surgeons' attitude regarding the intracorporeal (ICA) or extra-corporeal (ECA) anastomotic technique and the related surgical outcomes. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five Surgical Units experienced in colorectal and advanced laparoscopic surgery were invited and 85 of them joined the study. Each center was asked not to change its surgical habits. Data about demographic characteristics, surgical technique and postoperative outcomes were collected through the official SICE website database. One thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018. RESULTS: ICA was performed in 70.4% of cases, ECA in 29.6%. Isoperistaltic anastomosis was completed in 85.6%, stapled in 87.9%. Hand-sewn enterotomy closure was adopted in 86%. Postoperative complications were reported in 35.4% for ICA and 50.7% for ECA; no significant difference was found according to patients' characteristics and technologies used. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter for ICA (7.3 vs. 9 POD). Postoperative pain in patients not prescribed opioids was significantly lower in ICA group. CONCLUSIONS: In our survey, a side-to-side isoperistaltic stapled ICA with hand-sewn enterotomy closure is the most frequently adopted technique to perform ileo-colic anastomosis after any indications for elective LRH. According to literature, our study confirmed better short-term outcomes for ICA, with reduction of hospital stay and postoperative pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial (Identifier: NCT03934151).

Is a drain necessary after anterior resection of the rectum? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The anastomotic leak rate in colorectal surgery is highest in patients receiving anterior rectal resections. The placement of prophylactic pelvic drains remains a routine option for preventing postoperative leaks, despite increasing evidence suggesting no clinical benefit. The present study seeks to identify a consensus on the use of prophylactic drains in anterior rectal resections. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify clinical trials comparing the use of drainage to non-drainage in cases of colorectal anastomosis. RESULTS: Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and two controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified that met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1702 patients with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection: 1206 with a pelvic drain and 496 without a pelvic drain. Meta-analysis showed that the use of a drain did not significantly improve the outcomes of anastomotic leaks; the overall reoperation rate during the 30-day postoperative period and the postoperative mortality were statistically lower in the drained group (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.97; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of prophylactic pelvic drainage after anterior rectal resections does not provide significant benefits with respect to anastomotic leaks and overall complication rates. However, an approximately threefold reduction of the postoperative mortality of the drained patients was observed. Given the limitations of the present study, these findings warrant the use of a drain after anterior rectal resection. Nevertheless, due to the low quality of the available data, further multicenter trials with uniform inclusion criteria are needed to evaluate drain usage in the anterior rectal resection.