Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts.

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: A database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. The primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. RESULTS: A total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). A mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. No difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery.

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts.

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.

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.

Three-row versus two-row circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Since most anastomoses after left-sided colorectal resections are performed with a circular stapler, any technological change in stapling devices may influence the incidence of anastomotic adverse events. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of a three-row circular stapler on anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A circular stapled anastomosis was performed in 4255 (50.9%) out of 8359 patients enrolled in two prospective multicenter studies in Italy, and, after exclusion criteria to reduce heterogeneity, 2799 (65.8%) cases were retrospectively analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates relative to patient characteristics, to surgery and to perioperative management. Two well-balanced groups of 425 patients each were obtained: group (A) - true population of interest, anastomosis performed with a three-row circular stapler; group (B) - control population, anastomosis performed with a two-row circular stapler. The target of inferences was the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT). The primary endpoints were overall and major anastomotic leakage and overall anastomotic bleeding; the secondary endpoints were overall and major morbidity and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses for the outcomes, including the 20 covariates selected for matching, were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of overall anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 6.1%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15-0.73; P =0.006), major anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 5.2%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.87; P =0.022), and major morbidity (3.5 vs. 6.6% events; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.91; P =0.026). CONCLUSION: The use of three-row circular staplers independently reduced the risk of anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resection. Twenty-five patients were required to avoid one leakage.

Primary Tumour Treatment in Stage 4 Colorectal Cancer with Unresectable Liver and Lung Metastases and No Peritoneal Carcinomatosis-Current Trends and Attitudes in the Absence of Clear Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of the primary tumour in colorectal cancer with unresectable liver and/or lung metastases but no peritoneal carcinomatosis is still a matter of debate. In the absence of clear evidence and guidelines, our survey was aimed at obtaining a snapshot of the current attitudes and the rationales for the choice of offering resection of the primary tumour (RPT) despite the presence of untreatable metastases. METHODS: An online survey was administered to medical professionals worldwide. The survey had three sections: (1) demographics of the respondent, (2) case scenarios and (3) general questions. For each respondent, an "elective resection score" and an "emergency resection score" were calculated as a percentage of the times he or she would offer RPT in the elective and in the emergency case scenarios. They were correlated to independent variables such as age, type of affiliation and specific workload. RESULTS: Most respondents would offer palliative chemotherapy as the first choice in elective scenarios, while a more aggressive approach with RPT would be reserved for younger patients with good performance status and in emergency situations. Respondents younger than 50 years old and those with a specific workload of fewer than 40 cases of colorectal cancer per year tend to be more conservative. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of clear guidelines and evidence, there is a lack of consensus on the treatment of the primary tumour in case of colon cancer with unresectable liver and/or lung metastases and no peritoneal carcinomatosis. Palliative chemotherapy seems to be the first option, but more consistent evidence is needed to guide this choice.

Implementation Strategies for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections across the Surgical Pathway: An Italian Multisociety Document.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in significant patient morbidity and can prolong the duration of the hospital stay, causing high supplementary costs in addition to those already sustained due to the patient's underlying disease. Moreover, bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, making HAI prevention even more important nowadays. The public health consequences of antimicrobial resistance should be constrained by prevention and control actions, which must be a priority for all health systems of the world at all levels of care. As many HAIs are preventable, they may be considered an important indicator of the quality of patient care and represent an important patient safety issue in healthcare. To share implementation strategies for preventing HAIs in the surgical setting and in all healthcare facilities, an Italian multi-society document was published online in November 2022. This article represents an evidence-based summary of the document.

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue.

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs.

The multidisciplinary audit in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) colorectal surgery: experience in a single Italian center.

BACKGROUND: Current literature underlines the role of periodical feed-back to improve Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) path adherence during implementation program. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical impact of an audit program in an ERAS path. METHODS: All elective patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery from November 2018 to January 2020 in our Institution were considered. The sample was divided into two study groups: group 1, including patients enrolled in the first sixth months of ERAS program until the first audit; group 2, patients enrolled in a time period of a six months after the first audit. RESULTS: The final analysis included 46 patients in group 1 and 64 in group 2. Group 2 showed a higher ASA Score (P<0.03), a higher prevalence of right hemicolectomy, and a lower prevalence of left hemicolectomy and anterior rectum resection (RAR) (P<0.016). Group 2 also had a lower prevalence of anastomotic leakage (AL) (P<0.004). Intraoperative normothermia (T>36 C°) in this group was achieved in a larger number of patients in comparison with group 1 (39% vs. 19.5%) (P<0.01). Group 2 experienced a higher average body temperature at admission in recovery room (RR) when compared to Group 1 (35.8 vs. 35.1 C°, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Audit program may represent a useful tool to promote advantageous changes in clinical practice and to favor a better compliance to ERAS program.

The Role of the Recovery Room in Improving Adherence During an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Implementation Program for Colorectal Surgery: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of thisstudy was to evaluate the clinical impact of the Recovery Room (RR) in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway in colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. METHODS: From November 2019 until September 2021, a total of 149 consecutive patients that underwent to colon-rectal surgery were enrolled. The patients were divided into two study groups: RR Group if admitted to RR after surgery, and no-Recovery Room (NRR) Group if monitored directly on the ward, bypassing the RR. The postoperative ERAS items adherence was assessed in the two study groups. FINDINGS: Final analysis included 119 patients in the RR Group and 30 patients in NRR Group. Patients that started clear liquid oral intake within two hours postoperatively were 118 in the RR group and 19 in the NRR group (99.1% vs 63.3%, P < .001). A total of 98 patients and 18 patients were mobilized on day 0 in the RR group and in NRR group, respectively (84.4% vs 15.5%, P < .05). In the RR group, postoperative adherence to the ERAS protocol components was higher in comparison with the NRR group (P < .003); adherence to the all protocol components was also higher (P < .004). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing colorectal surgery admitted to RR after surgery, the RR nurse guaranteed effective patient assistance and ensured appropriate compliance to the postoperative ERAS items.

A Case Report of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus as an Early Warning Sign of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in an Elderly Patient: The Earlier the Diagnosis and Surgery, the Better the Prognosis.

Studies have been recently conducted to find pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in high-risk groups by identifying individuals with pancreatic cystic lesions and elderly people (> 50 years) with new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). We report the case of a 91-year-old woman in good health with pancreatic cysts, who firstly displayed a NODM and, one month later, a PDAC. A dehydration syndrome with polydipsia and asthenia led to her hospitalization. High levels of blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin were found. An abdomen US showed a minute pancreas with some cysts. Rehydration and insulin therapy led to a good glycemic compensation. One month after discharge, she displayed weight loss, diarrhea, and jaundice. On the second admission, high levels of total and direct bilirubin, indices of hepatic cholestasis, and Ca 19.9 were found. An abdomen contrast medium CT evidenced a nodule at the pancreatic head, suggesting a malignant lesion, and dilatation of both the Wirsung duct and the whole biliary tract. Despite the lack of a histological diagnosis, the absence of signs of local invasion, metastasis, and co-morbidities as well as the rapid clinical deterioration led us to propose surgical treatment. A few days later, a pancreatoduodenectomy was performed. The histologic examination showed a moderately differentiated (G2) PDAC. The TNM staging was IIA (pT3, N0, M0) (R0). Three weeks after, she was discharged with normal liver function tests, Ca 19.9 levels, and a good glycemic compensation with insulin therapy. Five years after surgical treatment, she is still doing well displaying a normal abdomen CT follow-up, normal blood tests, including Ca 19.9, and a good glycemic compensation. Our case report denotes an exceptional duration of survival of PDAC and highlights the importance to seek its presence in every case of NODM in patients > 50 years, especially if they carry pancreatic cysts.

Early Postoperative Low Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Rectal Cancer Patients.

Early postoperative low compliance to enhanced recovery protocols has been associated with morbidity following colon surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the possible causes of early postoperative low compliance to the enhanced recovery pathway and its relationship with morbidity following rectal surgery for cancer. A total of 439 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for rectal cancer have been included in the study. Compliance to enhanced recovery protocol on postoperative day (POD) 2 was evaluated in all patients. Indicators of compliance were naso-gastric tube and urinary catheter removal, recovery of both oral feeding and mobilization, and the stopping of intravenous fluids. Low compliance on POD 2 was defined as non- adherence to two or more items. One-third of patients had low compliance on POD 2. Removal of urinary catheter, intravenous fluids stop, and mobilization were the items with lowest adherence. Advanced age, duration of surgery, open surgery and diverting stoma were predictive factors of low compliance at multivariate analysis. Overall morbidity and major complications were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with low compliance on POD 2. At multivariate analysis, failure to remove urinary catheter on POD 2 (OR = 1.83) was significantly correlated with postoperative complications. Low compliance to enhanced recovery protocol on POD 2 was significantly associated with morbidity. Failure to remove the urinary catheter was the most predictive indicator. Advanced age, long procedure, open surgery and diverting stoma were independent predictive factors of low compliance.

The weekend effect on the provision of Emergency Surgery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: case-control analysis of a retrospective multicentre database.

INTRODUCTION: The concept of "weekend effect", that is, substandard healthcare during weekends, has never been fully demonstrated, and the different outcomes of emergency surgical patients admitted during weekends may be due to different conditions at admission and/or different therapeutic approaches. Aim of this international audit was to identify any change of pattern of emergency surgical admissions and treatments during weekends. Furthermore, we aimed at investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the alleged "weekend effect". METHODS: The database of the CovidICE-International Study was interrogated, and 6263 patients were selected for analysis. Non-trauma, 18+ yo patients admitted to 45 emergency surgery units in Europe in the months of March-April 2019 and March-April 2020 were included. Demographic and clinical data were anonymised by the referring centre and centrally collected and analysed with a statistical package. This study was endorsed by the Association of Italian Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) and the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). RESULTS: Three-quarters of patients have been admitted during workdays and only 25.7% during weekends. There was no difference in the distribution of gender, age, ASA class and diagnosis during weekends with respect to workdays. The first wave of the COVID pandemic caused a one-third reduction of emergency surgical admission both during workdays and weekends but did not change the relation between workdays and weekends. The treatment was more often surgical for patients admitted during weekends, with no difference between 2019 and 2020, and procedures were more often performed by open surgery. However, patients admitted during weekends had a threefold increased risk of laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion (1% vs. 3.4%). Hospital stay was longer in patients admitted during weekends, but those patients had a lower risk of readmission. There was no difference of the rate of rescue surgery between weekends and workdays. Subgroup analysis revealed that interventional procedures for hot gallbladder were less frequently performed on patients admitted during weekends. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed that demographic and clinical profiles of patients admitted during weekends do not differ significantly from workdays, but the therapeutic strategy may be different probably due to lack of availability of services and skillsets during weekends. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact on this difference.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Gastrectomy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly used in the treatment of gastric cancer. While laparoscopic gastrectomy has become standard therapy for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries, the use of minimally invasive techniques has not attained the same widespread acceptance for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its feasibility and oncological adequacy. We aimed to examine the safety and oncological effectiveness of laparoscopic technique with radical intent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer by comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy at two Western regional institutions. Methods: The trial was designed as a retrospective comparative matched case-control study for postoperative pathological diagnoses of locally advanced gastric carcinoma. Between January 2015 and September 2021, 120 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were retrospectively recruited and compared with 120 patients who received open gastrectomy. In order to obtain a comparison that was as homogeneous as possible, the equal control group of pairing (1:1) patients submitted to open gastrectomy who matched those of the laparoscopic group was statistically generated by using a propensity matched score method. The following potential confounder factors were aligned: age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidity, ASA, adjuvant therapy, tumour location, type of gastrectomy, and pT stage. Patient demographics, operative findings, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Results: In the case-control study, the two groups were clearly comparable with respect to matched variables, as was expected given the intentional primary selective criteria. No statistically significant differences were revealed in overall complications (16.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.489), rate of reoperation (3.3% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.714), and mortality (4.2% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.987) within 30 days. Pulmonary infection and wound complications were observed more frequently in the OG group (0.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01, for each of these two categories). Anastomotic and duodenal stump leakage occurred in 5.8% of the patients after laparoscopic gastrectomy and in 3.3% after open procedure (p = 0.072). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly longer operative time (212 vs. 192 min, p < 0.05) but shorter postoperative length of stay (9.1 vs. 11.6 days, p < 0.001). The mean number of resected lymph nodes after D2 dissection (31.4 vs. 33.3, p = 0.134) and clearance of surgical margins (97.5% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.432) were equivalent between the groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 nodal dissection appears to be safe and feasible in terms of perioperative morbidity for locally advanced gastric cancer, with comparable oncological equivalency with respect to traditional open surgery.

Emergency surgery admissions and the COVID-19 pandemic: did the first wave really change our practice? Results of an ACOI/WSES international retrospective cohort audit on 6263 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on emergency surgical services, with a significant reduction of patients admitted into emergency surgical units world widely. Reliable figures of this reduction have not been produced yet. Our international audit aimed at giving a precise snapshot of the absolute and relative changes of emergency surgical admissions at the outbreak of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Datasets of patients admitted as general surgical emergencies into 45 internationally distributed emergency surgical units during the months of March and April 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic outbreak) were collected and compared with those of patients admitted into the same units during the months of March and April 2019 (pre-Covid-19). Primary endpoint was to evaluate the relative variation of the presentation symptoms and discharge diagnoses between the two study periods. Secondary endpoint was to identify the possible change of therapeutic strategy during the same two periods. RESULTS: Forty-five centres participated sent their anonymised data to the study hub, for a total of 6263 patients. Of these, 3810 were admitted in the pre-Covid period and 2453 in the Covid period, for a 35.6% absolute reduction. The most common presentation was abdominal pain, whose incidence did not change between the two periods, but in the Covid period patients presented less frequently with anal pain, hernias, anaemia and weight loss. ASA 1 and low frailty patients were admitted less frequently, while ASA>1 and frail patients showed a relative increase. The type of surgical access did not change significantly, but lap-to-open conversion rate halved between the two study periods. Discharge diagnoses of appendicitis and diverticulitis reduced significantly, while bowel ischaemia and perianal ailments had a significant relative increase. CONCLUSIONS: Our audit demonstrates a significant overall reduction of emergency surgery admissions at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic with a minimal change of the proportions of single presentations, diagnoses and treatments. These findings may open the door to new ways of managing surgical emergencies without engulfing the already busy hospitals.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: has the time come for considered it a standard procedure?

Radical gastrectomy with an adequate lymphadenectomy is the main procedure which makes it possible to cure patients with resectable gastric cancer. A number of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis provide phase III evidence that laparoscopic gastrectomy is technically safe and that it yields better short-term outcomes than conventional open gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. At present, laparoscopic gastrectomy is considered a standard procedure for early-stage gastric cancer, especially in Asian countries. On the other hand, the use of minimally invasive techniques is still controversial for the treatment of more advanced tumours, principally due to existing concerns about its oncological adequacy and capacity to carry out an adequately extended lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer have been recently published, in particular concerning the latest results obtained by laparoscopic approach to advanced gastric cancer. It seems very useful to update the review of literature in light of these new evidences for this subject and draw some considerations.

ICG fluorescence imaging in colorectal surgery: a snapshot from the ICRAL study group.

BACKGROUND: Fluorescence-guided visualization is a recently proposed technology in colorectal surgery. Possible uses include evaluating perfusion, navigating lymph nodes and searching for hepatic metastases and peritoneal spread. Despite the absence of high-level evidence, this technique has gained considerable popularity among colorectal surgeons due to its significant reliability, safety, ease of use and relatively low cost. However, the actual use of this technique in daily clinical practice has not been reported to date. METHODS: This survey was conducted on April 2020 among 44 centers dealing with colorectal diseases and participating in the Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group. Surgeons were approximately equally divided based on geographical criteria from multiple Italian regions, with a large proportion based in public (89.1%) and nonacademic (75.7%) centers. They were invited to answer an online survey to snapshot their current behaviors regarding the use of fluorescence-guided visualization in colorectal surgery. Questions regarding technological availability, indications and techniques, personal approaches and feelings were collected in a 23-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaire replies were received from 37 institutions and partially answered by 8, as this latter group of centers do not implement fluorescence technology (21.6%). Out of the remaining 29 centers (78,4%), fluorescence is utilized in all laparoscopic colorectal resections by 72.4% of surgeons and only for selected cases by the remaining 27.6%, while 62.1% of respondents do not use fluorescence in open surgery (unless the perfusion is macroscopically uncertain with the naked eye, in which case 41.4% of them do). The survey also suggests that there is no agreement on dilution, dosing and timing, as many different practices are adopted based on personal judgment. Only approximately half of the surgeons reported a reduced leak rate with fluorescence perfusion assessment, but 65.5% of them strongly believe that this technique will become a minimum requirement for colorectal surgery in the future. CONCLUSION: The survey confirms that fluorescence is becoming a widely used technique in colorectal surgery. However, both the indications and methods still vary considerably; furthermore, the surgeons' perceptions of the results are insufficient to consider this technology essential. This survey emphasizes the need for further research to reach recommendations based on solid scientific evidence.

Management and 1-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze different types of management and one-year outcomes of anastomotic leakage (AL) after elective colorectal resection. METHODS: All patients with anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery with anastomosis (76/1,546; 4.9%), with the exclusion of cases with proximal diverting stoma, were followed-up for at least one year. Primary endpoints were as follows: composite outcome of one-year mortality and/or unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission and additional morbidity rates. Secondary endpoints were as follows: length of stay (LOS), one-year persistent stoma rate, and rate of return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT). RESULTS: One-year mortality rate was 10.5% and unplanned ICU admission rate was 30.3%. Risk factors of the composite outcome included age (aOR = 1.08 per 1-year increase, p = 0.002) and anastomotic breakdown with end stoma at reoperation (aOR = 2.77, p = 0.007). Additional morbidity rate was 52.6%: risk factors included open versus laparoscopic reoperation (aOR = 4.38, p = 0.03) and ICU admission (aOR = 3.63, p = 0.05). Median (IQR) overall LOS was 20 days (14-26), higher in the subgroup of patients reoperated without stoma. At 1 year, a stoma persisted in 32.0% of patients, higher in the open (41.2%) versus laparoscopic (12.5%) reoperation group (p = 0.04). Only 4 out of 18 patients (22.2%) were able to RIOT. CONCLUSION: Mortality and/or unplanned ICU admission rates after AL are influenced by increasing age and by anastomotic breakdown at reoperation; additional morbidity rates are influenced by unplanned ICU admission and by laparoscopic approach to reoperation, the latter also reducing permanent stoma and failure to RIOT rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03560180.

D1-plus vs D2 nodal dissection in gastric cancer: a propensity score matched comparison and review of published literature.

BACKGROUND: The results of D1-plus lymphadenectomy following gastric resection are seldom investigated. The aim of this study was to compare results of D1-plus vs D2 resections and to provide a literature review. METHODS: Patients who underwent upfront R0 gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2016 in three Institutions were selected using propensity scores and categorized according to lymphadenectomy. Statistical analyses were performed for the nodal harvest (LNH) and survival. Published literature comparing D1-plus and D2 was reviewed and analyzed according to PICO and PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Two matched groups of 93 D1-plus and 93 D2 resections were selected. LNH was significantly greater in D2 vs D1-plus dissections (mean 31.2 vs 27.2, p 0.04), however LNH distribution was similar. The cumulative incidence curves for overall survival, disease free and disease specific events did not report significant differences, however Cox regression analysis disclosed that total gastrectomies (HR 1.8; 95% 1.0-2.9), advanced stages (HR 5.9; 95% 3.4-10.3) and D1-plus nodal dissection (HR 2.1; 95% 1.26-3.50) independently correlated with disease free survival. Literature review including 297 D1-plus and 556 D2 lymphadenectomies documented LNH in favor of D2 sub-group (SMD -0.772; 95%CI -1.222- -0.322). CONCLUSION: D2 provided greater LNH than D1-plus dissections; prospective studies should aim to investigate long-term survival of D1-plus lymphadenectomy.