Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers' practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

IntroductionThe treatment of portal hypertension is complex and the the best strategy depends on the underlying disease (cirrhosis vs. schistosomiasis), patient's clinical condition and time on it is performed (during an acute episode of variceal bleeding or electively, as pre-primary, primary or secondary prophylaxis). With the advent of new pharmacological options and technical development of endoscopy and interventional radiology treatment of portal hypertension has changed in recent decades.AimTo review the strategies employed in elective and emergency treatment of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic and schistosomotic patients.MethodsSurvey of publications in PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, SciELO and Cochrane databases through June 2013, using the headings: portal hypertension, esophageal and gastric varices, variceal bleeding, liver cirrhosis, schistosomiasis mansoni, surgical treatment, pharmacological treatment, secondary prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis, pre-primary prophylaxis.ConclusionPre-primary prophylaxis doesn't have specific treatment strategies; the best recommendation is treatment of the underlying disease. Primary prophylaxis should be performed in cirrhotic patients with beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation. There is controversy regarding the effectiveness of primary prophylaxis in patients with schistosomiasis; when indicated, it is done with beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy in high-risk varices. Treatment of acute variceal bleeding is systematized in the literature, combination of vasoconstrictor drugs and endoscopic therapy, provided significant decline in mortality over the last decades. TIPS and surgical treatment are options as rescue therapy. Secondary prophylaxis plays a fundamental role in the reduction of recurrent bleeding, the best option in cirrhotic patients is the combination of pharmacological therapy with beta-blockers and endoscopic band ligation. TIPS or surgical treatment, are options for controlling rebleeding on failure of secondary prophylaxis. Despite the increasing evidence of the effectiveness of pharmacological and endoscopic treatment in schistosomotic patients, surgical therapy still plays an important role in secondary prophylaxis.

Background The complications inherent to conization include vaginal bleeding, cervical stenosis, amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, and deep dyspareunia. Cervical stenosis is the most important complication due to the clinical repercussions. Studies show rates of cervical stenosis ranging from 1.3 to 19% after the Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP). Objective Our primary outcome was to compare the role of a new endocervical device to prevent cervical stenosis after LEEP in patients with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). Methods A randomized clinical trial was performed including phases II and III for evaluation of a new device for cervical stenosis prevention. In Phase II, we included 25 patients who underwent LEEP and placement of the device to assess its toxicity and efficacy. In phase III, we compared two groups (with and without the use of an anti-stenosis device) to evaluate its efficacy and safety. Results From August 2015 to June 2018, 265 participants were randomized (Phase II: 25, Phase III: 120 with DUDA and 120 without DUDA). The toxicity during phase II was observed in only one patient (4%) with pain grade > 7. There were 7 cases of toxicity during Phase III, 2 in the DUDA group (1.8%), and 5 in the No DUDA group (4.5%). The complications rate was numerically higher in the No DUDA group (2.5x higher) than the DUDA group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.52). The rate of cervical stenosis in DUDA group was (4–7,3%), and in No DUDA group was (4.3–5.8%) (p = 0.5). We did not find a significant difference when comparing the evolution at 3, 6, and 12 months in terms of cervical patency and visualization of the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) during colposcopy. The DUDA group exhibited 15% to 19% nonvisualization of the SCJ, whereas that rate ranged from 10 to 12% in the No DUDA group. Conclusions The rate of cervical stenosis was not different comparing the use of a new device, specifically produced to prevent cervical stenosis, compared to no use after LEEP procedure. This clinical trial opens up space for a discussion of the utility of using cervical stenosis devices after LEEP. Perhaps in another type of conization it can be evaluated to avoid cervical stenosis.

Introduction Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare tumors and constitute only 1% of all tumors in adults. Indeed, due to their rarity, most cases in Brazil are not treated according to primary international guidelines. Methods This consensus addresses the treatment of STSs in the extremities. It was made by workgroups from Brazilian Societies of Surgical Oncology, Orthopaedics, Clinical Oncology, Pathology, Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, and Radiation Oncology. The workgroups based their arguments on the best level of evidence in the literature and recommendations were made according to diagnosis, staging, and treatment of STSs. A meeting was held with all the invited experts and the topics were presented individually with the definition of the degree of recommendation, based on the levels of evidence in the literature. Results Risk factors and epidemiology were described as well as the pathological aspects and imaging. All recommendations are described with the degree of recommendation and levels of evidence. Conclusion Recommendations based on the best literature regional aspects were made to guide professionals who treat STS. Separate consensus on specific treatments for retroperitoneal, visceral, trunk, head and neck sarcomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor, are not contemplated into this consensus.

Background Approximately 70% of cancer‐related deaths occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries. In addition to social and racial inequalities, treatment options in these countries are usually limited because of the lack of trained staff and equipment, limited patient access to health services, and a small number of clinical guidelines. Objectives The Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology developed this guideline to address these barriers and guide physicians treating patients with endometrial cancer (EC) in regions with limited resources and few specialized centers. Methods The guideline was prepared from 10 January to 25 October 20192019 by a multidisciplinary team of 56 experts to discuss the main obstacles faced by EC patients in Brazil. Thirteen questions considered critical to the surgical treatment of these patients were defined. The questions were assigned to groups that reviewed the literature and drafted preliminary recommendations. Following a review by the coordinators and a second review by all participants, the groups made final adjustments for presentations in meetings, classified the level of evidence, and voted on the recommendations. Results For all questions including staging, fertility spearing treatment, genetic testing, sentinel lymph node use, surgical treatment, and other clinical relevant questions, major agreement was achieved by the participants, always using accessible alternatives. Conclusions It is possible to provide adequate treatment for most EC patients in resource‐limited areas, but the first option should be referral to specialized centers with more resources.