No abstract

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of the rectum offers wider circumferential margin and decreased rate of intraoperative tumour perforation. However, the need to change the position of the patient in between abdominal and perineal stages of the procedure and extended perineal resection result in increased morbidity and operative time. Evolving technique of laparoscopic transabdominal controlled division of levator ani muscles under direct vision could address these issues while providing all benefits of ELAPE for patients with low rectal cancers.

Background: Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer (LRR) has gained popularity because of better short-term outcomes and less post-operative morbidity. However, LRR is still not endorsed as a standard of care mainly due to concerns centred on oncological safety in comparison with open approach. Moreover, two recent randomised trials (Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum [ALaCaRT] and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group [ACOSOG] Z6051) have failed to prove that LRR is non-inferior to open resection. Studies on oncological adequacy of LRR in the Indian population in terms of quality of mesorectal excision are scarce. In this article, we aim to audit the oncological adequacy of LRR in our centre and thereby critically analyse the reliability of extrapolation of results of ALaCaRT and ACOSOG trials to the Indian population. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the oncological adequacy of LRR in terms of completeness of total mesorectal excision (TME), distal and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status and nodal harvest in patients with rectal cancer who underwent LRR between January 2016 and June 2018 at our centre. Results: Of 157 patients included in this study, a complete TME was achieved in 148 (94.26%) patients and nearly complete in 7 (4.46%) patients. A safe CRM (≥1 mm) was obtained in 151 (96.18%) patients. Distal margin results were negative in 155 (98.73%) patients. Average nodal harvest was 19.86 ± 9.28. Overall surgical success, calculated as a composite measure of negative distal margin and negative CRM and complete TME was 95.54%. Conclusion: Good quality rectal cancer resection can be achieved by experienced laparoscopic surgeons without compromising oncological safety.

Introduction: Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm is a unique enigmatic disease typically affecting young females. Being a low-grade neoplasm surgical resection is often curative. Rare cases (5-15%) present with distant metastasis. Only 2% has lymph nodal metastasis. This is a case report of metastatic SPN with both visceral and lymph nodal involvement. The work has been reported in line with the SCARE criteria. Case Presentation: The authors present a case of metastatic SPN in an 18-year-old female who came with an abdominal lump. Contrast enhanced CT abdomen findings were in favour of huge SPN arising from pancreatic tail. The prime concern was the coexistence of bilobar liver metastasis predominantly involving right lobe. The complexity of surgical resection along with metastatectomy in a young female was herculean. This clinical dilemma was tackled with staged resection. Conclusion: Even in metastatic SPN a reasonable survival can be achieved by surgical debulking. We emphasize the importance of aggressive approach in operable metastatic SPN.

Context: Surgical site infections (SSI) continue to be a major cause of morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital stays and a major reason of financial burden to health-care providers and patients after major abdominal surgeries. Along with infection control practices and care bundles, additional use of devices which protect the wound from contamination is believed to decrease the burden of SSI. Aims: This study aims to assess the benefit of single-ring disposable wound protector in preventing SSI, overall complications, hospitals stay and morbidity data in laparoscopic colorectal resection. Settings and Design: The study design involves case–control study, retrospective. Subjects and Methods: A case–control study comparing single ring oval wound protector versus conventional wound protectors retrospectively between August 2019 and December 2021. The ease of use of the device, rate of SSI, overall complications, hospitals stay and morbidity data were analysed. Statistical Analysis Used: The statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS Statistics 20 version. All Categorical Variables will be described as frequency and percentage. Continuous variables will be described as mean ± standard deviation. Continuous variables were analysed using t-test and categorical parameters using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of the 110 patients studied, wound Protecting devices were used in 58 patients Wound Protector Group (WPG group) and 62 patients did not use such devices (no WPG). The groups were comparable in demographic features, risk features, systemic illness, type of surgeries undertaken and the specimen extraction wound used. There was a significant decrease in the incidence of SSI (1.7% vs. 16% P ≤ 0.008) and the hospital stay (P ≤ 0.03) when WPG was used compared to the group in which it was not used. Conclusions: Apart from the use of infection control practices and care bundles, the use of oval-shaped single-ring wound protector is likely to reduce SSI.