Background The introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancer has raised an important discussion in relation to the extent of colic and mesenteric resection, and the impact this may have on lymph node yield. As uncertainty remains regarding the usefulness of and indications for right hemicolectomy with CME and the benefits of CME compared with a traditional approach, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the two procedures in terms of safety, lymph node yield and oncological outcome. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature from 2009 up to March 15th, 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two hundred eighty-one publications were evaluated, and 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included. Primary endpoints analysed were anastomotic leak rate, blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, 3- and 5-year oncologic outcomes. Secondary outcomes were operating time, conversion, intraoperative complications, reoperation rate, overall and Clavien–Dindo grade 3–4 postoperative complications. Results In terms of safety, right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to the standard procedure when comparing rates of anastomotic leak (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38–1.79), blood loss (MD −32.48, 95% CI −98.54 to −33.58), overall postoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67–1.00), Clavien–Dindo grade III–IV postoperative complications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82–2.28) and reoperation rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26–1.75). Traditional surgery is associated with a shorter operating time (MD 16.43, 95% CI 4.27–28.60) and lower conversion from laparoscopic to open approach (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00–2.96). In terms of oncologic outcomes, right hemicolectomy with CME leads to a higher lymph node yield than traditional surgery (MD 7.05, 95% CI 4.06–10.04). Results of statistical analysis comparing 3-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were better in the CME group, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27–0.66 and RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17–0.56, respectively. Conclusions Right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to traditional surgery in terms of safety and has a greater lymph node yield when compared with traditional surgery. Moreover, right-sided CME is associated with better overall and disease-free survival.

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.

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 ...

Background: Low-volume (LV) preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume (HV) ones in trials. However, real-life clinical outcomes data are lacking. Our aim was to assess patients’ free choice among HV preparations (4L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and LV (2L PEG plus bisacodyl) and to compare efficacy and tolerability. Methods: Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy could choose either LV or HV preparation with schedules (day-before or split-dose) depending on their appointment time. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, clinical outcomes and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.Results: 2,040 patients were enrolled and 1,815 (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=0.0055). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs. 86.6%, p=0.0983) but HV ones resulted higher in detection rates for polyps (PDR; OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03–1.64, p=0.0254), adenomas (ADR; OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.99–1.65, p=0.0519) and advanced adenomas (AADR; OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96–2.46, p= 0.0723) after adjustment for sex, age, indications. Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7 [5-9]) but a ≥75% dose intake was more frequent with LV.Conclusions: in a real-life setting, LV preparation confirms similar efficacy and tolerability compared to HV. However, with higher PDR and a trend toward higher ADR and AADR, HV should still be considered the reference standard for clinical trials.

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.