Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center. PATIENTS: From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center. SETTINGS: A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable. RESULTS: The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.

Low-impact laparoscopy in colorectal resection-A multicentric randomised trial comparing low-pressure pneumoperitoneum plus microsurgery versus low-pressure pneumoperitoneum alone: The PAROS II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LLP) in laparoscopy colorectal surgery (CS) has resulted in reduced hospital stay and lower analgesic consumption. Microsurgery (MS) in CS is a technique that has a significant impact with respect to postoperative pain. The combination of MS plus LLP, known as low-impact laparoscopy (LIL), has never been applied in CS. Therefore, this trial will assess the efficacy of LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in terms of decreasing postoperative pain 24 h after surgery, without taking opioids. METHOD: PAROS II will be a prospective, multicentre, outcome assessor-blinded, randomised controlled phase III clinical trial that compares LLP plus MS versus LLP alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colonic or upper rectal cancer or benign pathology. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with postoperative pain 24 h after the surgery, as defined by a visual analogue scale rating ≤3 and without taking opioids. Overall, PAROS II aims to recruit 148 patients for 50% of patients to reach the primary outcome in the LLP plus MS arm, with 80% power and an 5% alpha risk. CONCLUSION: The PAROS II trial will be the first phase III trial to investigate the impact of LIL, including LLP plus MS, in laparoscopic CS. The results may improve the postoperative recovery experience and decrease opioid consumption after laparoscopic CS.