The results of this study seem to be clinically meaningful and in line with those from other studies. The initial validation revealed good predictive properties.

Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) perioperative pathways are safe and effective for patients undergoing gastrectomy. However, adherence to these protocols varies and is generally underreported. This retrospective study aimed to assess whether perioperative variables or deviation from ERAS items is associated with delayed discharge after gastrectomy. Methods All patients undergoing gastrectomy at our institution were managed with a standardised perioperative pathway according to ERAS principles. The target length of stay was set as the ninth post‐operative day (POD). All significant variables were derived from a bivariate analysis and were entered into a logistic regression to confirm their statistical value. Results The study included 180 patients. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that incomplete immunonutrition, failure to extubate the patient at the end of surgery, intraoperative crystalloids >2150 ml and blood transfusion >268 ml, surgery duration >195 min, and failure to mobilise patients within 24 h from surgery were associated with delayed discharge. The logistic regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.001) and correctly classified 73.6% of cases. Sensitivity and specificity were 74.1% and 73.2%, respectively. Conclusions These results seem clinically significant and consistent with those of previous studies. The reported perioperative variables showed a strong relationship with the length of hospital stay.

Background and Objectives: Conservative treatment represents an essential pillar of lymphedema management, along with debulking and physiologic surgeries. Despite the consistent number of treatment options, there is currently no agreement on their indications and possible combinations. When dealing with unusual lymphedema presentation as in the genitalia (Genital Lymphedema—GL), treatment choice becomes even more difficult. The authors aimed to present their targeted algorithm of single and combined treatment modalities for rare GL in order to face this paucity of information. Materials and Methods: Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database since January 1983, and cases of GL that were managed in the authors’ department were selected. Only patients that were treated in the authors’ institution and presented a minimum follow-up of 3 months were admitted to the current study. Results: From January 1983 to July 2021, 19 patients with GL were recruited. All the patients were male, and their ages ranged from 21 to 73 years old (average: 52). Ten cases (52.6%) presented with ISL (International Society of Lymphology) stage I, five (26.3%) were stage II and four (21.1%) were stage III. GL was managed with conservative treatment (12 cases), LVA (LymphaticoVenous Anastomosis) (3) or surgical excision (4). In a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (range: 3 months—11 years), no major complications occurred, and all cases reached improvements in functional and quality of life terms. Conclusions: Contrary to the predominant thought of the necessity to avoid surgery in unusual lymphedema presentations such as GL, they can be managed using targeted multimodal approaches or by adapting well-known procedures in unusual ways to achieve control of disease progression and improve patients’ quality of life.