Background The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours. Methods This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy—absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy. Results Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures. Conclusion No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

No abstract

Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006e2009; II) 2010e2013; III)2014e2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/ radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p ¼ 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p ¼ 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p ¼ 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59e0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P ¼ 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion:There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN þ benefited the most.

No abstract

No abstract