Introduction: Transverse colon cancer (TCC) is poorly studied, and TCC cases are often excluded from large prospective randomized trials because of their complexity and their potentially high complication rate. The best surgical approach for TCC has yet to be established. The aim of this large retrospective multicenter Italian series is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of both hemicolectomy and transverse colectomy in order to identify the best surgical approach. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with mid-transverse colon cancer treated with a segmental colon resection or an extended hemicolectomy (right or left) between 2006 and 2016 in 28 high-volume (more than 70 procedures/year) Italian referral centers for colorectal surgery.Results: The study included 1529 patients, 388 of whom underwent a segmental resection while 1141 underwent an extended resection. A higher number of complications has been reported in the segmental group than in the extended group (30.1% versus 23.6%; p 0.010). In 42 cases the main complication was the anastomotic leak (4.4% versus 2.2%; p 0.020). Recovery outcomes also showed statistical differences: time to first flatus (p 0.014), time to first mobilization (p 0.040), and overall hospital stay (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the extended group. Even if overall survival were similar between the groups (95.1% versus 97%; p 0.384), 3-year disease-free survival worsened after segmental resection (78.1% versus 86.2%; p 0.001). Conclusions: According to our results, an extended right colon resection for TCC seems to be surgically safer and more oncologically valid.

No abstract

SUMMARY Minimally invasive Heller myotomy is considered the gold standard surgical approach for symptomatic achalasia because it is a safe and effective procedure. Over the last years, several studies comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approach for Heller myotomy have been published. Although the robotic approach appears to have some advantages over standard laparoscopy, data on this topic are still controversial and no definite conclusions have been drawn. This metanalysis has been designed to systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of the robot-assisted Heller myotomy as compared to the standard laparoscopic approach. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search on both laparoscopic and robotic Heller myotomy was performed in all the major electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search string: (achalasia OR Dor) AND robotic. Six articles were included in the final analysis. A metaregression analysis was performed to assess the possible effects of demographic variables (age, gender, body mass indes (BMI)) and previous abdominal surgery or endoscopic intervention on the analyzed outcomes. No statistical difference was observed in operative times (mean difference (MD) = 20.79, P = 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.05,51,62), estimated blood loss (MD = −17.10, P = 0.13, 95% CI −40.48,5.08), conversion rate to open surgery (risk difference (RD) = −0.01, P = 0.33, 95% CI −0.05,0.02), length of hospital stay (MD = −0.73, P = 0.15, 95% CI −1.71,0.25) and long-term recurrence (odds ratio (OR) = 0.59, P = 0.45, 95% CI 0.15,2.33). On the contrary, the robotic approach was found to be associated with a significantly significant lower rate of intraoperative esophageal perforations (OR = 0.13, P &lt; 0.001, 95% CI 0.04, 0.45). Our results suggest that the robotic approach is safer than the laparoscopic Heller myotomy, encouraging the use of robot-assisted surgery. However, our analysis is limited because of the exiguous number of comparative studies and because most of the included studies were statistically underpowered, given the small sample size. Moreover, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in most of published studies. Taking in consideration the additional costs of robot-assisted procedures, larger Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are advocated to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the robotic approach, and its advantages over standard laparoscopic surgery. In conclusion, well-designed prospective trials and RCTs with homogeneous parameters are needed to draw definitive conclusions about the best surgical approach to pursue in treating symptomatic achalasia.

AbstractThe management of chronic pilonidal disease remains controversial, but recently, new minimal invasive approaches have been proposed. Whereas in the conventional surgical treatment an elliptical wedge of skin and subcutaneous tissue is created to remove the sinus and its lateral tracks, the basis for our new treatment is to create a minimal elliptical wedge of the subcutaneous tissue, including all the inflamed tissue and debris while leaving the overlying skin intact.The mechanism of an endoscopic approach relies on use of the endoscope without cutaneous tissue damage. Advantages include shorter operative time and time to discharge, which impact resource management in both primary and secondary care: patients undergoing endoscopic technique have a high satisfaction rate, probably due to the low level of postoperative pain and early return to work and daily activities. However, it is mandatory that further studies would analyze surgical approaches to pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) with a consistent and adequate follow-up of at least 5 years. Both sinusectomy and endoscopic approach to PSD were found to be safe and effective compared with conventional techniques. Publishedresults of studies of newer approaches have demonstrated a low short-term complication rate, comparable to conventional surgery results.

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.