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.

Rectus muscle diastasis in Italian women: determinants of disease severity, and associated disorders.

Purpose: Diastasis of rectus abdominis (DRA) refers to a separation of the rectus abdominis from the linea alba, which is common in the female population during pregnancy and in the postpartum period. The present study aimed at investigating DRA severity, risk factors and associated disorders. Methods: In the present cross-sectional study, a web-based questionnaire was addressed to the 23,000 members of the Women's Diastasis Association. The questionnaire comprised three parts, dedicated respectively to diastasis characteristics, possible risk factors, and related disorders. Faecal and urinary incontinences were assessed using the Wexner and ICIQ-SF score, respectively. Risk factors for diastasis severity (<3, 3-5, >5 cm) were evaluated by a multinomial regression model. Results: Four thousand six hundred twenty-nine women with a mean age (SD) of 39.8 (6.5) years and a median BMI of 23.7 kg/m2 (range 16.0-40.0) responded to the questionnaire. Proportion of DRA >5 cm increased from 22.8% in norm weight women to 44.0% in severely obese women, and from 10.0% in nulliparous women to 39.3% in women with >3 pregnancies. These associations were confirmed in multivariable analysis. DRA severity was associated with the risk of abdominal hernia and pelvic prolapse, whose prevalence more than doubled from women with DRA <3 cm (31.6% and 9.7%, respectively) to women with DRA >5 cm (68.2% and 20.2%). In addition, most patients reported postural pain and urinary incontinence, whose frequency increased with DRA severity. Conclusion: The present study confirmed that DRA severity increases with increasing BMI and number of pregnancies. Larger separation between rectal muscles was associated with increased risk of pain/discomfort, urinary incontinence, abdominal hernia and pelvic prolapse. Prospective studies are needed to better evaluate risk factors.

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.

Safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by trainee surgeons with different cholangiographic techniques (SCOTCH): a prospective non-randomized trial on the impact of fluorescent cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by trainees.

AIMS: The identification of the anatomical components of the Calot's Triangle during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) might be challenging and its difficulty may increase when a surgical trainee (ST) is in charge, ultimately allegedly affecting also the incidence of common bile duct injuries (CBDIs). There are various methods to help reach the critical view of safety (CVS): intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), critical view of safety in white light (CVS-WL) and near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (NIRF-C). The primary objective was to compare the use of these techniques to obtain the CVS during elective LC performed by ST. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective observational study (Clinicalstrials.gov Registration number: NCT04863482). The impact of three different visualization techniques (IOC, CVS-WL, NIRF-C) on LC was analyzed. Operative time and time to achieve the CVS were considered. All the participating surgeons were also required to fill in three questionnaires at the end of the operation focusing on anatomical identification of the general task and their satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-nine centers participated for a total of 338 patients: 260 CVS-WL, 10 IOC and 68 NIRF-C groups. The groups did not differ in the baseline characteristics. CVS was considered achieved in all the included case. Rates were statistically higher in the NIR-C group for common hepatic and common bile duct visualization (p = 0.046; p < 0.005, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time (p = 0.089) nor in the time to achieve the CVS (p = 0.626). Three biliary duct injuries were reported: 2 in the CVS-WL and 1 in the NIR-C. Surgical workload scores were statistically lower in every domain in the NIR-C group. Subjective satisfaction was higher in the NIR-C group. There were no other statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: These data showed that using NIRF-C did not prolong operative time but positively influenced the surgeon's satisfaction of the performance of LC.

Diverticulitis, surgery, evidence-based medicine, and the Steve Jobs' dots: a narrative review.

PURPOSE: Emergency treatment of acute diverticulitis remains a hazy field. Despite a number of clinical studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), guidelines and surgical societies recommendations, the most critical hot topics have yet to be addressed. METHODS: Literature research from 1963 until today was performed. Data regarding the principal RCTs and observational studies were summarized in descriptive tables. In particular we aimed to focus on the following topics: the role of laparoscopy, the acute care setting, the RCTs, guidelines, observational studies and classifications proposed by literature, the problem in case of a pandemic, and the importance of adapting treatment /place/surgeon conditions. RESULTS: In the evaluation of these points we did not try to find any prospective evolution of the concepts achievements. On the contrary we simply report the individuals strands of research from a retrospective point of view, similarly to what Steve Jobes said: "you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future". We have finally obtained what can be defined "a narrative review of the literature on diverticulitis". CONCLUSIONS: Not only evidence-based medicine but also the contextualization, as also the role of 'competent' surgeons, should guide to novel approach in acute diverticulitis management.

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.

Nationwide analysis of inpatient laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in Italy from 2015 to 2020.

Since 2010, several guidelines and consensus papers have been proposed to support surgeons in the decision-making process (Cuccurullo et al. in Hernia 17(5):557-566, 2013; Silecchia et al. in Surg Endosc 29:2463-2484, 2015; Bittner et al. in Surg Endosc 33(11):3511-3549, 2015) with the conclusion that laparoscopic repair (LR) has gained popularity in the treatment of IH.To date, however, it is not yet clear as to the uptake of LR for IH on national basis. Only dated studies encompassing of all types of incisional hernia repairs are available in literature (Bisgaard et al. in Br J Surg 96:1452-1457, 2009). The aim of our study is to present a snapshot of Italian data for LR of ventral hernias, over a 6 years period, including volume of LR, procedural features and major postoperative outcomes. Data were extracted from the Italian Hospital Information System (HIS) that collects clinical and administrative information regarding each hospital admission of every patient discharged from any hospital in Italy. Using Hospital Discharge records regional Databases (HDD), all laparoscopic ventral hernia procedures carried out in public and private hospitals between 2015 and 2020, in patients over 18 years and resident in Italy, were collected based on diagnosis and procedure codes. The National Agency for Regional Health Services (AgeNaS) oversees the management and analysis of data. All hospital admissions that occurred between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed.A total of 154,546 incisional hernia repairs were performed in Italy from 2015 to 2020. Of these, 20,789 (13.45%) were minimally invasive repairs. The number of procedures performed increased significantly over time, constituting 11.96 and 15.24% of all procedures performed in 2015 and 2020 respectively. However, considering the whole period, the mean annual change was-5.58% (CI - 28.6% to 17.44%; p < 0.0001).Urgent minimally invasive repairs were performed in 1968 cases (1.27%). The absolute rate of laparoscopically treated patients needing an urgent surgical procedure increased overtime (from 7.36% in 2015 to 13.418% in 2020). The mean annual change registered over the whole period was 7.42%. 92% (CI - 0.03 to 14.09%; p < 0.0001). However, when considering the period from 2015 to 2019, the mean annual change was 10.42% (CI 6.35 to 14.49%; p < 0.0001). To our knowledge this is the first nationwide Italian report presenting the national workload of surgical units and the main perioperative features of minimally invasive surgery for ventral hernia repairs.

Nationwide analysis of laparoscopic groin hernia repair in Italy from 2015 to 2020.

Since its introduction, the minimally invasive treatment of groin hernias has become widely accepted as a viable alternative to open surgery. Still, the rates and reasons for its adoption vary highly among countries and the regions within a country. After almost thirty years since its introduction, its spread is still limited. The present study, conducted under the auspices of AGENAS (Italian National Agency for Regional Services), aims at giving a snapshot of the spreading of minimally invasive and robotic techniques for the treatment of groin hernia in Italy. This study is retrospective, with data covering the period from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020. AGENAS provided data using the operation and diagnosis codes used at discharge and reported in the International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9 2002 version). Admissions performed on an outpatient basis, i.e., without an overnight stay of at least one night in hospital, were excluded. A total of 33,925 laparoscopic hernia repairs were performed during the considered period. Overall, a slight increase in the number of procedures performed was observed from 2015 to 2019, with a mean annual change of 8.60% (CI: 6.46-10.74; p < 0.0001). The number of laparoscopic procedures dropped in 2020, and when considering the whole period, the mean annual change was - 0.98% (CI: - 7.41-5.45; p < 0.0001). Urgent procedures ranged from 335 in 2015 to 508 in 2020 referring to absolute frequencies, and from 0.87% to 9.8% in relative frequencies of overall procedures in 2017 and 2020, respectively (mean = 4.51%; CI = 3.02%-6%; p < 0.001). The most relevant observation that could be made according to our analysis was that the adoption of the laparoscopic approach knew a slow but steady increase from 2015 onward.

Augmented reality (AR) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training: where are we now in Italy? The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) ARMIS survey.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a widespread approach in general surgery. Computer guiding software, such as the augmented reality (AR), the virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR), has been proposed to help surgeons during MIS. This study aims to report these technologies' current knowledge and diffusion during surgical training in Italy. A web-based survey was developed under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE). Two hundred and seventeen medical doctors' answers were analyzed. Participants were surgeons (138, 63.6%) and residents in surgery (79, 36.4%). The mean knowledge of the role of the VR, AR and MR in surgery was 4.9 ± 2.4 (range 1-10). Most of the participants (122, 56.2%) did not have experience with any proposed technologies. However, although the lack of experience in this field, the answers about the functioning of the technologies were correct in most cases. Most of the participants answered that VR, AR and MR should be used more frequently for the teaching and training and during the clinical activity (170, 80.3%) and that such technologies would make a significant contribution, especially in training (183, 84.3%) and didactic (156, 71.9%). Finally, the main limitations to the diffusion of these technologies were the insufficient knowledge (182, 83.9%) and costs (175, 80.6%). Based on the present study, in Italy, the knowledge and dissemination of these technologies are still limited. Further studies are required to establish the usefulness of AR, VR and MR in surgical training.

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.

ERas and COLorectal endoscopic surgery: an Italian society for endoscopic surgery and new technologies (SICE) national report.

BACKGROUND: Several reports demonstrated a strong association between the level of adherence to the protocol and improved clinical outcomes after surgery. However, it is difficult to obtain full adherence to the protocol into clinical practice and has still not been identified the threshold beyond which improved functional results can be reached. METHODS: The ERCOLE (ERas and COLorectal Endoscopic surgery) study was as a cohort, prospective, multi-centre national study evaluating the association between adherence to ERAS items and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was to associate the percentage of ERAS adherence to functional recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study was to validate safety of the ERAS programme evaluating complications' occurrence according to Clavien-Dindo classification and to evaluate the compliance of the Italian surgeons to each ERAS item. RESULTS: 1138 patients were included. Adherence to the ERAS protocol was full only in 101 patients (8.9%), > 75% of the ERAS items in 736 (64.7%) and > 50% in 1127 (99%). Adherence to > 75% was associated with a better functional recovery with 90.2 ± 98.8 vs 95.9 ± 33.4 h (p = 0.003). At difference, full adherence to the ERAS components 91.7 ± 22.1 vs 92.2 ± 31.6 h (p = 0.8) was not associated with better recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our results were encouraging to affirm that adherence to the ERAS program up to 75% could be considered satisfactory to get the goal. Our study could be considered a call to simplify the ERAS protocol facilitating its penetrance into clinical practice.

Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: It has been previously demonstrated that the rise of intra-abdominal pressures and prolonged exposure to such pressures can produce changes in the cardiovascular and pulmonary dynamic which, though potentially well tolerated in the majority of healthy patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, may be less well tolerated when cardiopulmonary reserve is poor. Nevertheless, theoretically lowering intra-abdominal pressure could reduce the impact of pneumoperitoneum on the blood circulation of intra-abdominal organs as well as cardiopulmonary function. However, the evidence remains weak, and as such, the debate remains unresolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the current knowledge around the effect of pneumoperitoneum at different pressures levels during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 44 randomized controlled trials that compared different pressures of pneumoperitoneum in the setting of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Length of hospital, conversion rate, and complications rate were not significantly different, whereas statistically significant differences were observed in post-operative pain and analgesic consumption. According to the GRADE criteria, overall quality of evidence was high for intra-operative bile spillage (critical outcome), overall complications (critical outcome), shoulder pain (critical outcome), and overall post-operative pain (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was moderate for conversion to open surgery (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 1 day (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 3 days (important outcome), and bleeding (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was low for operative time (important outcome), length of hospital stay (important outcome), post-operative pain at 12 h (critical outcome), and was very low for post-operative pain at 1 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 4 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 8 h (critical outcome), and post-operative pain at 2 days (critical outcome). CONCLUSIONS: This review allowed us to draw conclusive results from the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with an adequate quality of evidence.

COVID-19 pandemic: is it time for shared surgical guidelines? A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The recent COrona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a massive disruption of surgical activity and after a year from its first outbreak surgeons still struggle to keep their regular activity coexisting with the virus exhausting requests of healthcare resources. The aim of this paper is to offer a comprehensive overview of the most important recommendations by the International Guidelines about general surgery, and possibly to invite building common shared guidelines to preserve the potential to provide surgical assistance despite the pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches revealed a total of 18579 articles published up to the end of February 2021. Five articles published between March and May 2020, were included in the present study: Guidelines from The European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES), The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and The European Association for Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES), The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA), The European Hernia Society (EHS) and The International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOS-IBD). CONCLUSIONS: In the likely scenario that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will become an endemic chronic problem, we should not be forced to choose between COVID-19 or surgery in the future and find a way to make both coexisting.

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.

Appendectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a multicenter ambispective cohort study by the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (the CRAC study).

Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis is that a significant reduction in the number of emergent appendectomies was observed during the pandemic, restricted to complex cases. The study aimed to analyse emergent surgical appendectomies during pandemic on a national basis and compare it to the same period of the previous year. This is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing emergent appendectomy in March-April 2019 vs March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs open) and the complication rates. One thousand five hundred forty one patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the inclusion criteria: 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.2%) in 2019. According to AAST, patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 30.3% vs 39.9% in 2020 (p = 0.001). We observed an increase in the number of post-operative complications in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), the increase of a unit in the AAST score (+ 26%), surgery performed > 24 h after admission (+ 58%), open surgery (+ 112%) and conversion to open surgery (+ 166%). In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. During the first pandemic wave, patients undergoing surgery were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and experienced a higher number of complications. Trial registration number and date: Research Registry ID 5789, May 7th, 2020.