Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: As life expectancy has been increasing, older patients are becoming more central to the healthcare system, leading to more intensive care use and longer hospital stays. Nevertheless, advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques offer safe and effective options for older patients with colorectal diseases. This study aims to provide comprehensive evidence on the role of minimally invasive surgery in treating colorectal diseases in older patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All articles directly compared the minimally invasive approach with open surgery in patients aged ≥65 years. The present metanalysis took 30-day complications as primary outcomes. Length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality were also assessed, as secondary outcomes. Further subgroup analyses were carried out based on surgery setting, lesion features, and location. RESULTS: After searching the main databases, 84 articles were included. Evaluation of 30-day complications rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality significantly favored minimally invasive approaches. The outcome readmission did not show any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The current metanalysis demonstrates clear advantages of minimally invasive techniques over open surgery in colorectal procedures for older patients, particularly in reducing complications, mortality, and hospitalization. This suggests that prioritizing these techniques, based on available expertise and facilities, could improve outcomes and quality of care for older patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology. RESULT: Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy: cost analysis of the Torino trial.

BACKGROUND: Intracorporeal (IIA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EIA) are two well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Since no economic analysis comparing the two different anastomotic techniques has been performed yet, it is still unclear if IIA can reduce perioperative costs. The aim of the study was to compare costs of LRC with IIA or EIA for right-sided colon neoplasm. METHODS: This is a cost analysis of a single-institution double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a right-sided colon neoplasm. All direct in-hospital costs related to patient's admission were recorded (intraoperative costs: operative room, surgical tools, blood units-postoperative costs: hospital stay, laboratory and microbiology analyses, diagnostic services, analgesic drugs and antibiotic therapy, blood units, reoperation-outpatient costs: post-discharge wound medications). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT03045107. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Mean overall costs in the IIA group exceeded 349 € the mean overall costs of the EIA group (7926.87 ± 4617.23 € vs. 7577.45 ± 6131.17 €; P = 0.704). A mean extra charge of 608 € regarding total intraoperative costs was recorded in the IIA group (3058.84 ± 897.42 € vs. 2450.15 ± 558.90 €; P < 0.001). The cost of surgical instruments resulted in 542 € additional charge per patient in the IIA group compared to EIA group (1782.74 ± 541.26 € vs. 1240.55 ± 384.09 €; P < 0.001). The mean cost of operative room occupancy was comparable in IIA and EIA group: 1276.09 ± 514.94 € vs. 1209.60 ± 422.80 € (P = 0.405). No significant differences were observed in postoperative costs and in outpatient costs. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis showed that IIA and EIA after LRC had similar overall costs, even though there were intraoperative extra costs of IIA.

Is it possible to continue academic teaching in surgery during the COVID pandemic era?

In the era of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we critically appraised the literature by means of a systematic review on surgical education and propose an educational curriculum with the aid of available technologies. We performed a literature search on 10 May 2020 of Medline/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and major journals with specific COVID-19 sections. Articles eligible for inclusion contained the topic of education in surgery in the context of COVID-19. Specific questions we aimed to answer were: Is there any difference in surgical education from pre-COVID-19 to now? How does technology assist us in teaching? Can we better harness technology to augment resident training? Two-hundred and twenty-six articles were identified, 21 relevant for our aim: 14 case studies, three survey analyses, three reviews and one commentary. The collapse of the traditional educational system due to social distancing caused a fragmentation of knowledge, a reduced acquisition of skills and a decreased employment of surgical trainees. These problems can be partially overcome by using new technologies and arranging 2-weeks rotation shifts, alternating clinical activities with learning. While medical care will remain largely based on the interaction with patients, students' adaptability to innovation will be a characteristic of post-COVID classes.

Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND: The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC. METHODS: A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS. CONCLUSION(S): Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

Surgical management of acute diverticulitis. An update based on our experience and literature data.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of acute diverticulitis is a matter of debate and has undergone significant changes. Currently the main focus of surgical treatment is a more conservative and less invasive management. AIMS AND METHODS: To focus the role of surgery in the treatment of acute diverticulitis, the Authors have conducted a review of the literature of the last two decades and have revised critically their own experience. RESULTS: The indications for elective surgery based on the number of episodes, the young age at diagnosis and the presence of risk factors such as immunosuppression, have to be overcome in favour of a more individual approach based on the severity of the disease. Similarly the presence of pneumoperitoneum is no longer a compelling indication for urgent surgery just as it was in the past. In the treatment of complicated diverticulitis with abscess (Hinchey I-II) is used more and more conservative treatments consisting of guided percutaneous drainage combined with antibiotics. Resection with primary anastomosis with or without diverting ileostomy is preferable to Hartmann's procedure in case of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis (Hinchey III-IV), using the latter only in the case of comorbidities, severe sepsis, hemodynamic instability or longtime feculent peritonitis (Hinchey IV). Recently, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was introduced in the treatment of diverticulitis. CONCLUSIONS: Thanks to the progress made in conservative and interventional treatment and laparoscopic surgery, an increasingly less invasive treatment is proposed in the management of acute diverticulitis. KEY WORDS: Acute diverticulitis, Laparoscopic surgery, Surgical treatment.