No abstract

Background Several procedures have been proposed to reduce the rates of recurrence in patients with right-sided colon cancer. Different procedures for a radical right colectomy (RRC), including extended D3 lymphadenectomy, complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation have been associated with survival benefits by some authors, but results are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to assess the variability in definition and reporting of RRC, which might be responsible for significant differences in outcome evaluation. Methods PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review to identify the definitions of RRC. Primary aims were to identify surgical steps and different nomenclature for RRC. Secondary aims were description of heterogeneity and overlap among different RRC techniques. Results Ninety-nine articles satisfied inclusion criteria. Eight surgical steps were identified and recorded as specific to RRC: Central arterial ligation was described in 100% of the included studies; preservation of mesocolic integrity in 73% and dissection along the SMV plane in 67%. Other surgical steps were inconstantly reported. Six differently named techniques for RRC have been identified. There were 35 definitions for the 6 techniques and 40% of these were used to identify more than one technique. Conclusions The only universally adopted surgical step for RRC is central arterial ligation. There is great heterogeneity and consistent overlap among definitions of all RRC techniques. This is likely to jeopardise the interpretation of the outcomes of studies on the topic. Consistent use of definitions and reporting of procedures are needed to obtain reliable conclusions in future trials. PROSPERO CRD42021241650.

Background and Aims Debate exists on whether ileal pouch anal anastomosis [IPAA] can be safely offered to patients diagnosed with Crohn’s disease [CD]. Our aim was to assess the outcome of IPAA for CD vs ulcerative colitis [UC]. Methods We used a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant meta-analysis. Studies published between 1993 and 2018 were retrieved. Primary end points included complications. Secondary endpoints included functional outcome. The time of CD diagnosis was considered [intentional vs incidental IPAA]. Results Eleven studies comprising 6770 patients [CD = 352, UC = 6418] were included, with 44–120 months of follow-up. Pouch fistulae were more common in CD (CD vs UC; odds ratio (OR) 6.08; p = 0.0003, GRADE+++), as were strictures [OR 1.82; p = 0.02, GRADE+++] and failure [OR 5.27; p < 0.0001, GRADE++++]. Compared with UC, postoperative CD diagnosis was associated with a much higher risk of fistulae [OR 6.23; p = 0.006, GRADE+++] and failure [OR 8.53; p < 0.0001, GRADE++++] than intentional IPAA in CD [fistula: OR 4.17; p = 0.04, GRADE+++; failure: OR 2.48; p = 0.009, GRADE++++]. Age at surgery was positively associated with failure in CD [p = 0.007]. Obstruction was more common after intentional IPAA for CD. The risk of pouchitis did not differ between CD and UC [OR 1.07, p = 0.76, GRADE+++]. CD patients were at a higher risk of seepage [OR 2.27; p = 0.010, GRADE++]. Conclusions Patients with CD have 5-fold higher risk of failure, and a 2-fold risk of strictures after IPAA compared with UC. The risk is much higher if diagnosis is performed after IPAA. Function in those who retain the pouch seemed similar to that of patients with UC. CD does not increase the risk of pouchitis. IPAA could be offered to a selected population of CD patients after proper preoperative counselling. [PROSPERO registry 116811]

Introduction Hospital centralization effect is reported to lower complications and mortality for high risk and complex surgery operations, including colorectal surgery. However, no linear relation between volume and outcome has been demonstrated. Aim of the study was to evaluate the increased surgical volume effect on early outcomes of patient undergoing laparoscopic restorative anterior rectal resection (ARR). Methods A retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing ARR with primary anastomosis between November 2016 and December 2020 after centralization of rectal cancer cases in an academic Centre. Short-term outcomes are compared to those of patients operated in the same unit during the previous 10 years before service centralization. The primary outcome was estimated anastomotic leak rate. Mean operative time, need of conversion, postoperative use of blood transfusion, radicality, in-hospital stay, number and type of complications, readmission and reoperation rate, mortality and 1-year and stoma persistence rates were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results 86 patients were operated in the study period and outcomes compared to those of 101 patients operated during the previous ten years. Difference in volume of surgery was significant between the two periods (p 0.019) and the estimated leak rate was significantly lower in the higher volume unit (p 0.047). Mean operative time, need of conversion, postoperative use of blood transfusion and in-hospital stay (p < 0.05) were also significantly reduced in Group A. Conclusion This study suggests that the shift toward higher volume in rectal cancer surgery is associated to decreased anastomotic leak rate. Potentiation of lower volume surgical units may yield optimal perioperative outcomes.

No abstract