Background Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly being performed because of perceived patient benefits. Whether conversion of MIPD to open pancreatoduodenectomy worsens outcome, and which risk factors are associated with conversion, is unclear. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of a European multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MIPD (2012–2017) in ten medium-volume (10–19 MIPDs annually) and four high-volume (at least 20 MIPDs annually) centres. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to compare outcomes of converted and non-converted MIPD procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for conversion, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i). Results Overall, 65 of 709 MIPDs were converted (9.2 per cent) and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.8 per cent. Risk factors for conversion were tumour size larger than 40 mm (OR 2.7, 95 per cent c.i.1.0 to 6.8; P = 0.041), pancreatobiliary tumours (OR 2.2, 1.0 to 4.8; P = 0.039), age at least 75 years (OR 2.0, 1.0 to 4.1; P = 0.043), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (OR 5.2, 2.5 to 10.7; P < 0.001). Medium-volume centres had a higher risk of conversion than high-volume centres (15.2 versus 4.1 per cent, P < 0.001; OR 4.1, 2.3 to 7.4, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (56 converted MIPDs and 56 completed MIPDs) including risk factors, rates of complications with a Clavien–Dindo grade of III or higher (32 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.841) and 30-day mortality (12 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.274) did not differ between converted and non-converted MIPDs. Conclusion Risk factors for conversion during MIPD include age, large tumour size, tumour location, laparoscopic approach, and surgery in medium-volume centres. Although conversion during MIPD itself was not associated with worse outcomes, the outcome in these patients was poor in general which should be taken into account during patient selection for MIPD.

Combining an endoscopic transanal TME and a single laparoscopic ileostomy-site proctectomy is a promising minimally invasive approach for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Background The implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme after colectomy reduces postoperative morbidity and shortens the length of hospital stay. Objective To evaluate the short and midterm outcomes of ambulatory colectomy for cancer. Methods This was a two‐centre, observational study of a database maintained prospectively between 2013 and 2021. Short‐term outcome measures were complications, admissions, unplanned consultations and readmission rates. Midterm outcome measures were the delay between surgery and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, length of disease‐free survival and 2‐year disease‐free survival rate. Results A total of 177 patients were included. The overall morbidity rate was 15% and the mortality rate was 0%. The admission rate was 13% and 11% patients left hospital within 24 h of surgery. The readmission rate was 9% and all readmissions occurred before postoperative Day 4. Eight patients underwent repeat surgery because of anastomotic fistula (n = 7) or anastomotic ileocolic bleeding (n = 1). These patients had an uneventful recovery. Sixty‐one patients required adjuvant chemotherapy with a median delay between surgery and chemotherapy initiation of 35 days. Conclusions Ambulatory colectomy for cancer is feasible and safe. Adjuvant chemotherapy could be initiated before 6 weeks postsurgery. The ambulatory approach may be a step forward to further improve morbidity and oncologic prognosis.

No abstract

Preoperative identification of the factors increasing the risk of conversion may assist surgeons in making decisions concerning the management of patients, including appropriate use of SILC.