Robotic-assisted right colectomy. Official expert recommendations delivered under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC).

Twenty-seven experts under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC) offer this reference system with formalized recommendations concerning the performance of right colectomy by robotic approach (RRC). For RRC, experts suggest patient installation in the so-called "classic" or "suprapubic" setup. For patients undergoing right colectomy for a benign pathology or cancer, RRC provides no significant benefit in terms of intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative complications or conversion rate to laparotomy compared to laparoscopy. At the same time, RRC is associated with significantly longer operating times. Data from the literature are insufficient to define whether the robot facilitates the performance of an intra-abdominal anastomosis, but the robotic approach is more frequently associated with an intra-abdominal anastomosis than the laparoscopic approach. Experts also suggest that RRC offers a benefit in terms of post-operative morbidity compared to right colectomy by laparotomy. No benefit is retained in terms of mortality, duration of hospital stay, histological results, overall survival or disease-free survival in RRC performed for cancer. In addition, RRC should not be performed based on the cost/benefit ratio, since RRC is associated with significantly higher costs than laparoscopy and laparotomy. Future research in the field of RRC should consider the evaluation of patient-targeted parameters such as pain or quality of life and the technical advantages of the robot for complex procedural steps, as well as surgical and oncological results.

Distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic carcinoma in the era of multimodal treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent publications have suggested improvements in the outcome of distal pancreatectomy (DP) for cancer, but the series were small and heterogeneous. The aim of the present study was to assess perioperative and long-term outcomes of DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the era of multimodal treatment in a major European country. METHODS: This was a nationwide study of all patients undergoing DP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2009 in 28 centres in France. Postoperative and long-term outcomes were assessed retrospectively and outcome predictors were explored by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were enrolled. Multivisceral resections were performed in 58 patients (20·9 per cent), venous resections in 33 (11·9 per cent) and arterial resections in 11 (4·0 per cent). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was used in 20 patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 96 patients (34·5 per cent) and pancreatic fistulas developed in 76 (27·3 per cent). The postoperative 90-day mortality rate was 5·0 per cent. In univariable analysis, multivisceral resection was the only factor associated with postoperative morbidity (P = 0·048). Age 65 years or less, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m(2) and absence of preoperative chemoradiotherapy were associated with an increased risk of pancreatic fistula in multivariable analysis. Overall survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 44·9 and 29·5 per cent respectively. In multivariable analysis, only the presence of lymph node metastases was associated with poorer overall survival. CONCLUSION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with pancreatic fistula remain considerable after DP, but both short- and long-term survival have improved markedly.

Practice patterns in complex ventral hernia repair and place of biological grafts: a national survey among French digestive academic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of complex ventral hernias, there is little agreement on the most appropriate technique or prosthetic to repair these defects, especially in contaminated fields. Our objective was to determine French surgical practice patterns among academic surgeons in complex ventral hernia repair (CVHR) with regard to indications, most appropriate techniques, choice of prosthesis, and experience with complications. METHODS: A survey consisting of 21 questions and 6 case-scenarios was e-mailed to French practicing academic surgeons performing CVHR, representing all French University Hospitals. RESULTS: Forty over 54 surgeons (74%) responded to the survey, representing 29 French University Hospitals. Regarding the techniques used for CVHR, primary closure without reinforcement was provided in 31.6% of cases, primary closure using the component separation technique without mesh use in 43.7% of cases, mesh positioned as a bridge in 16.5% of cases, size reduction of the defect by using aponeurotomy incisions without mesh use in 8.2% of cases. Among the 40 respondents, 36 had experience with biologic mesh. There was a strong consensus among surveyed surgeons for not using synthetic mesh in contaminated or dirty fields (100%), but for using it in clean settings (100%). There was also a strong consensus between respondents for using biologic mesh in contaminated (82.5%) or infected (77.5%) fields and for not using it in clean setting (95%). In clean-contaminated surgery, there was no consensus for defining the optimal therapeutic strategy in CVHR. Infection was the most common complication reported after biologic mesh used (58%). The most commonly reported influences for the use of biologic grafts included literature, conferences and discussion with colleagues (85.0%), personal experience (45.0%) and cost (40.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of level I evidence, biologic meshes are being used by 90% of surveyed surgeons for CVHR. Importantly, there was a strong consensus for using them in contaminated or infected fields and for not using them in clean setting. To better guide surgeons, prospective, randomized trials should be undertaken to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these materials in various surgical wound classifications.