BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer is a common tumor with a quite high-related mortality. Despite the used curative treatments, patients will develop cancer recurrence in up to 50% of the cases and/or other primary neoplasms. Although most of the recurrences are discovered within 3 years from the first treatment, a small percentage is found after 5 years. The early detection of recurrence is crucial to allow further therapies improving patients’ survival. Several follow-up programs have been developed but the optimal one is far from being established. AIM To evaluation of potential prognostic factors for timing and patterns of recurrence in order to plan tailored follow-up programs. METHODS Perioperative and long-term data of all consecutive patients surgically treated with curative intent, from January 2006 to June 2009, for colorectal adenocar-cinoma, were retrospectively reviewed to find potential prognostic factors associated with: (1) Recurrence incidence; (2) Incidence of an early (within 3 years from surgery) or late recurrence; and (3) Different sites of recurrence. In addition, the incidence of other primary neoplasms has been evaluated in a cohort of patients with a minimum potential follow-up of 10 years. RESULTS Our study included 234 patients. The median follow-up period has been 119 ± 46.2 mo. The recurrence rate has been 25.6%. Patients with a higher chance to develop recurrence had also the following characteristics: Higher levels of preoperative glycemia and carcinoembryonic antigen, highest anaesthesiologists Score score, occlusion, received a complex operation performed with an open technique, after a longer hospital stay, and showed advanced tumors. The independent prognostic factors for recurrence were the hospital stay, N stage 2, and M stage 1 (multivariate analysis). Younger ages were significantly associated with an early recurrence onset. Patients that received intermediate colectomies or segmental resections, having an N stage 2 or American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 3 tumors were also associated with a higher risk of liver recurrence, while metastatic diseases at diagnosis were linked with local recurrence. Neoadjuvant treatments showed lung recurrence. Finally, bigger tumors and higher lymph node ratio were associated with peritoneal recurrence (marginally significant). Thirty patients developed a second malignancy during the follow-up time. CONCLUSION Several prognostic factors should be considered for tailored follow-up programs, eventually, beyond 5 years from the first treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: The best operative approach to large hiatal hernias still remains controversial between suture cruroplasty and prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy. This study aims at analysing results from a single institution in Italy in terms of subjective and objective outcomes. Methods: Retrospectively collected data of all patients that underwent laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair since 2011 were considered. Sixty-five patients were included overall; 17 of them fit the criteria of large hiatal hernia. Follow-up (FU) was assessed by visit, questionnaires and X-ray imaging. Results: No major complications occurred in the post-operative course. No patient was lost during the FU period. Out of all the patients included, 13 agreed to have an X-ray with water-soluble contrast. The questionnaires showed a 76.5% rate of satisfaction (13 patients), and the recurrence rate demonstrated by radiology was 29.4% (five patients). There were no major mesh-related complications. Conclusion: The best operative approach for large hiatal hernias remains far from standardised: There is a lack of evidence on the use of a mesh for this kind of surgery as well as substantial controversy over the definition of what a giant hiatal hernia is. Nevertheless, the results from this study and the main studies in the literature seem to be encouraging in improving giant hiatal hernia repair outcomes.

No abstract