Inferior mesenteric artery ligation level in rectal cancer surgery: still no answer-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current scientific evidence regarding the impact of the level of inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) ligation on post-operative and oncological outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature up to 06 September 2022. Included were RCTs that compared patients who underwent high (HL) vs. anterior (LL) IMA ligation for resection of rectal cancer. The literature search was performed on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science without any language restrictions. The primary endpoint was overall anastomotic leakage (AL). Secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes, intraoperative complications, urogenital functional outcomes, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (1331 patients) were included. The overall rate of AL was lower in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.96). The overall number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (MD 0.93, 95% CI - 2.21 to 0.34). The number of lymph nodes harvested was assessed in 256 patients, and all had a laparoscopic procedure. The number of lymph nodes was higher when LL was associated with lymphadenectomy of the vascular root than when IMA was ligated at its origin, but there the difference was not statistically significant (MD - 0.37, 95% CI - 1.00 to 0.26). Overall survival at 5 years was slightly better in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05). Disease-free survival at 5 years was higher in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support HL or LL according to results in terms of AL or oncologic outcome. Moreover, there is not enough evidence to determine the impact of the level of IMA ligation on functional outcomes. The level of IMA ligation should be chosen case by case based on expected functional and oncological outcomes.

Unilateral Thoracoscopic Thymectomy for Thymoma: Does Side Matter? A Single Institutional Experience.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoscopic thymectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of early stage thymoma. It is characterized by shorter postoperative hospital stay, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and fewer complications compared with transsternal thymectomy. Unilateral video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) thymectomy can be easily performed from either side of the thorax, because thymus is located in the middle of mediastinum. However, the side that provides better outcomes remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of right and left approaches in performing unilateral thoracoscopic thymectomy for thymoma. METHODS: Consecutive patients affected by thymoma who underwent VATS thymectomy on either side between February 2001 and March 2020 were enrolled in the study. Clinicopathologic, surgical, and oncological outcomes were retrospectively analyzed and compared among the two surgical approaches. RESULTS: Unilateral VATS approaches were performed on 29 patients: 12 (41%) on the left side and 17 (59%) on the right side. The mean age was 63.1 ± 11.3 years and the female/male ratio was 1.73:1. The mean operative time and the hospital stay for the left-side VATS and right-side VATS groups were, respectively, 168 ± 49.5 versus 171 ± 47.9 minutes (p = 0.9) and 3 ± 1.03 days versus 3.65 ± 1.93 days (p = 0.7). Postoperative complications occurred in one patient (3%) for left-side VATS group and one patient (3%) for right-side VATS. The 5-year disease-free survival was comparable between two groups (p = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Unilateral VATS thymectomy in patients with thymoma can be safely and effectively performed by experienced surgeons in either side of the thorax with equivalent oncological outcomes.

Rise and fall of total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 11,366 patients.

The role of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) during total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is still controversial. Many reviews were published on prophylactic LLND in rectal cancer surgery, some biased by heterogeneity of overall associated treatments. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a timeline analysis of different treatments associated to prophylactic LLND vs no-LLND during TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS and WOS for publications up to 1 September 2020. We considered RCTs and CCTs comparing oncologic and functional outcomes of TME with or without LLND in patients with rectal cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four included articles and 29 studies enrolled 11,606 patients. No difference in 5-year local recurrence (in every subgroup analysis including preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), 5-year distant and overall recurrence, 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival was found between LLND group and non LLND group. The analysis of post-operative functional outcomes reported hindered quality of life (urinary, evacuatory and sexual dysfunction) in LLND patients when compared to non LLND. CONCLUSION: Our publication does not demonstrate that TME with LLND has any oncological advantage when compared to TME alone, showing that with the advent of neoadjuvant therapy, the advantage of LLND is lost. In this review, the most important bias is the heterogeneous characteristics of patients, cancer staging, different neoadjuvant therapy, different radiotherapy techniques and fractionation used in different studies. Higher rate of functional post-operative complications does not support routinely use of LLND.

Laparoscopic surgery for splenic injuries in the era of non-operative management: current status and future perspectives.

The spleen is one of the organs most commonly injured by blunt abdominal trauma. It plays an important role in immune response to infections, especially those sustained by encapsulated bacteria. Nonoperative management (NOM), comprising clinical and radiological observation with or without angioembolization, is the treatment of choice for traumatic splenic injury in patients who are hemodynamically stable. However, this strategy carries a risk of failure, especially for high-grade injuries. No clear predictors of failure have been identified, but minimally invasive surgery for splenic injury is gaining popularity. Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for hemodynamically stable patients who require surgery, such as after failed NOM. We reviewed research articles on laparoscopic surgery for hemodynamically stable patients with splenic trauma to explore the current knowledge about this topic. After presenting an overview of the treatments for splenic trauma and the immunological function of the spleen, we try to identify the future indications for laparoscopic surgery in the era of NOM.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in patients using high- and low-volume cleansing products.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel preparation is crucial for colonoscopy completeness and lesions detection. Today, several cleansing products are equally recommended by guidelines, irrespective of patients' characteristics. Identification of preparation-specific risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation may lead to a personalized prescription of cleansing products to refine patients' tolerance and improve endoscopic outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy using either a high-volume [HV: 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG)] or a low-volume (LV: 2 l PEG + bisacodyl) preparation. Day-before regimen or split-dose regimen was used for morning or afternoon colonoscopies, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors related to inadequate bowel preparation, according to the Boston bowel preparation scale for HV and LV preparations. RESULTS: We enrolled 2040 patients, of which 1815 were included in the final analysis (average age 60.6 years, 50.2% men). Half of them (52%) used LV preparation. Adequate preparation was achieved by 87.6% without differences between the HV and LV groups (89.2% vs. 86.6%; P = 0.098). The use of day-before regimen and incomplete assumption of PEG were independent predictors of poor visibility for either HV or LV preparation. However, different specific risk factors for HV [diabetes: odds ratio (OR), 3.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91-7.58; low level of instruction: OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.11-3.44; and previous abdominal surgery: OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.20-4.30] and for LV (heart disease: OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.09-3.88; age > 65 years: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.27) preparations were identified. CONCLUSION: Day-before preparation and incomplete assumption of the purgative agents affect bowel visibility irrespective of the preparation volume. LV should be preferred to HV preparations in patients with diabetes, low level of instruction, and previous abdominal surgery, whereas an HV preparation should be preferred in patients with heart disease and in older patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study.

BACKGROUND: Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking. AIM: To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed. RESULTS: Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs 38.2%, P = 0.005). High-definition scopes were used in 33.4% of patients, without difference in the two groups (P = 0.605). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs 86.6%, P = 0.098), also considering the two different schedules (HV split-dose 93.8% vs LV split-dose 93.6%, P = 1; HV day-before 85.5% vs LV day-before 82.3%, P = 0.182). Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations (7.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). After adjustment for sex, age and indications for colonoscopy, HV preparation resulted higher in PDR [Odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, P = 0.011] and ADR (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.02-1.63, P = 0.038) and comparable to LV in AADR (OR 1.51, 95%CI 0.97-2.35, P = 0.069), SDR and cancer detection rate. The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR (adjusted OR 1.59, 95%CI: 1.22-2.08, P < 0.001), ADR (adjusted OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.26-2.30, P < 0.001) and AADR (adjusted OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.09-3.56, P = 0.025) in patients receiving LV preparation. Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7, P = 0.627) but a ≥ 75% dose intake was more frequent with LV (94.6% vs 92.1%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.

Mechanical hepaticojejunostomy: can we use a circular stapler as a viable and safe alternative? -a retrospective study of a single center.

BACKGROUND: Since the first years of the 1980s, some authors described the use of mechanical stapler for the creation of anastomosis in biliary surgery. However, the use of these devices has not spread during the following decades, and nowadays most centers usually craft hand-sewn anastomosis. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from medical records, surgical registries and computerized databases about the use of mechanical circular staplers for the creation of hepaticojejunostomy at our institution. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, 11 stapled hepaticojejunostomy for both neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases were performed at our institution. The mean age of the patient was 74, with a sex distribution of 5 men and 6 women. The mean preoperative common bile duct diameter was 19 mm. Preoperative blood samples showed mean total bilirubin of 6.95 mg/dL. No intraoperative complications were reported. Two patients (18%) had minor postoperative complications (1 wound dehiscence and 1 episode of melena that required blood transfusions), while no major complications occurred. No patients developed biliary fistula or anastomotic dehiscence. No one dies within 30 days from surgery. The mean postoperative length of stay was 13 days. CONCLUSIONS: According to our limited experience, stapled hepaticojejunostomy seems to be a safe and effective technique in selected patients.