Lessons learned from 227 biological meshes used for the surgical treatment of ventral abdominal defects.

PURPOSE: The advantages of biological meshes for ventral hernia repair are still under debate. Given the high financial cost, the proper indications for biological meshes should be clarified to restrict their use to properly selected patients. METHODS: A retrospective database was instituted to register all cases of abdominal wall defect treated with biological meshes from 1/2010 to 3/2016. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (mean age: 64 years) whose ventral abdominal defects were reconstructed with a biological mesh were included in the study. Patients were divided according to the 2010 four-level surgical-site complication risk grading system proposed by the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG): Grade 1 (G1, 12 cases), Grade 2 (G2, 68 cases), Grade 3 (G3, 112 cases), and Grade 4 (G4, 35 cases). The surgical site complication rate was higher in patients with one or more risk factors (33.6% vs 19% in patients with no risk factors) (P = 0.68). Statistically significant risk factors associated with the onset of one or more postoperative surgical site complications included: diabetes, coronary artery disease, immunosuppression, and obesity. Recurrence was more common in patients with surgical site complications and mainly associated with infection (38.9%) and wound necrosis (44.4%), and in cases of inlay positioning of the mesh (36%). CONCLUSIONS: Due to their high costs, biological mesh should not be used in G1 patients. In infected fields (G4), they should only be used if no other surgical solution is feasible. There is a clear need to prospectively evaluate the performance of biological meshes.

Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer: matched comparison in elderly and younger patients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have addressed the issue of the feasibility of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients, usually by choosing an arbitrary cut-off age limit, and retrospectively evaluating patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of age on the outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer in a single department, by comparing younger and older patients, matched by ASA score and type of operation. METHODS: The perioperative outcome of patients ≥75 years old who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer between June 2005 and January 2009 were compared with findings in younger patients, matched by ASA score and type of operation. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients, fifty <75 years old (Group A) and fifty ≥75 (Group B) years old. There were 18 right hemicolectomies, 16 left hemicolectomies, 4 anterior resections, 9 low anterior resections, 2 Miles' operations and 1 segmental resection in each group. We observed a significantly higher overall morbidity rate among elderly patients than among younger patients (24 vs. 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer in patients ≥75 years old reveal that they have higher postoperative risk compared to their younger counterparts, even when matched by ASA score and type of operation. It suggests that although advanced age, per se, is not a contraindication, it is a risk for patients who undergo laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer. This surgery in elderly patients should be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers to keep postoperative risk to a minimum.

Minimally invasive resection for colorectal cancer: perioperative and medium-term results in an unselected patient group at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopy for colorectal cancer resection is still controversial. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed the outcome of minimally invasive resection for colorectal cancer, performed at our institution from 1998, when laparoscopic surgery became the treatment of choice for colorectal cancer, until 2004. All patients undergoing elective resection were assessed in terms of perioperative results (duration of surgery, number of lymph nodes removed, length of specimen, rate of conversion, complications) and survival. Patients were assessed yearly with follow-up visits and telephone interviews. RESULTS: In the study period, 302 patients (mean age 66.1 years; range, 32-93 years) underwent 114 left hemicolectomies, 108 low anterior resections, 61 right hemicolectomies, 12 Miles procedures, 4 subtotal colectomies, and 3 transverse colon resections. Surgery took an average of 226 minutes (SD=71 min). The number of lymph nodes removed was 14+/-8. The conversion rate was 10%; most of the conversions were due to locally advanced cancer (15 cases) and bowel distension (7 cases). Fifteen anastomotic leaks were observed (5%). Twenty patients needed reoperation and two died: one of septic shock due to an anastomotic leak; the other of electrolyte imbalance and dehydration after peritonitis due to a bowel loop injury. Follow-up was available for 91% of patients. Cancer-related survival curves showed a 90% survival for stage II, 85% for stage III, and 10% for stage IV disease, 30 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer enables an oncologically adequate resection with complication and survival rates that are no worse than are to be expected after traditional open surgery. Locally advanced tumor and bowel distension are the most frequent reasons for conversion to open surgery.