Benedetta Badii

Totally Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND The role of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer is still controversial, particularly in terms of oncologic efficacy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for gastric cancer at a single Western institution. SUBJECTS AND METHODS This study was designed as a matched cohort study from a prospective gastric cancer database. Forty-one patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer between June 2008 and January 2012 were matched with 41 patients undergoing open gastrectomy in the same time period. Patient pairing was done according to age, gender, type of gastrectomy (subtotal or total), and tumor stage via a randomized statistical method. The short-term outcomes and oncologic adequacy of the laparoscopic and open procedures were compared. A D2 lymph node dissection was performed in the majority of patients in both groups. RESULTS The two study groups were similar with respect to patient and tumor characteristics. Laparoscopic procedures were associated with a decreased blood loss (118.7 versus 312.4 mL, P<.005), incidence of surgery-unrelated complications (3 versus 9 patients, P<.05), and duration of hospital stay (8.1 versus 11.5 days, P<.05) but increased operative time for both subtotal (223.5 versus 158.2 minutes, P<.001) and total (298.1 versus 185.5 minutes, P<.001) gastrectomies. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes after D2 dissection was similar: 30.0 for laparoscopic and 29.7 for open patients. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, this study shows that the laparoscopic approach is a safe and oncologically adequate option for the treatment of gastric cancer, which compares favorably with open gastrectomy in short-term outcomes.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative mono-institutional study

BackgroundRobotic surgery has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopy in the performance of complex mini-invasive procedures. The present study was designed to compare robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer.MethodsBetween June 2008 and September 2015, 41 laparoscopic and 30 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed by a single surgeon at the same institution. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients, surgical performance, postoperative morbidity/mortality and pathologic data were prospectively collected and compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups by the Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney test, as indicated.ResultsThere were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Mean tumor size was larger in the laparoscopic than in the robotic patients (5.3 ± 0.5 cm and 3.0 ± 0.4 cm, respectively; P = 0.02). However, tumor stage distribution was similar between the two groups. The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic patients (39.1 ± 3.7 and 30.5 ± 2.0, respectively; P = 0.02). The mean operative time was 262.6 ± 8.6 min in the laparoscopic group and 312.6 ± 15.7 min in the robotic group (P < 0.001). The incidences of surgery-related and surgery-unrelated complications were similar in the laparoscopic and in the robotic patients. There were no significant differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of a small-sized, non-randomized analysis, our study confirms that robotic distal gastrectomy is a feasible and safe surgical procedure. When compared with conventional laparoscopy, robotic surgery shows evident benefits in the performance of lymphadenectomy with a higher number of retrieved and examined lymph nodes.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery

AIM To investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes. METHODS This is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided. RESULTS The present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric cancer compared on surgical, clinical and oncological outcomes: a multi-institutional chart review. A study protocol of the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer-IMIGASTRIC.

Introduction Gastric cancer represents a great challenge for healthcare providers and requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach in which surgery plays a major role. Minimally invasive surgery has been progressively developed, first with the advent of laparoscopy and recently with the spread of robotic surgery, but a number of issues are currently being debated, including the limitations in performing an effective extended lymph node dissection, the real advantages of robotic systems, the role of laparoscopy for Advanced Gastric Cancer, the reproducibility of a total intracorporeal technique and the oncological results achievable during long-term follow-up. Methods and analysis A multi-institutional international database will be established to evaluate the role of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches in gastric cancer, comprising of information regarding surgical, clinical and oncological features. A chart review will be conducted to enter data of participants with gastric cancer, previously treated at the participating institutions. The database is the first of its kind, through an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centres. Ethics and dissemination This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevant laws/regulations. A multicentre study with a large number of patients will permit further investigation of the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches for the management of gastric cancer. Trial registration number NCT02325453; Pre-results.

A unique presentation of a renal clear cell carcinoma with atypical metastases

Highlights • Management of advanced renal cancer.• Role of multidisciplinary approach in atypical metastatic renal cancer.• Cytoreductive surgery and metastasectomy improving effectiveness of multi-targeted therapies.• Disease free progression after surgery and multi-targeted therapies in advanced renal clear cell carcinoma.

Survival after laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer: a comparative, single-institution study

BackgroundSome recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer may provide a potential survival advantage when compared with open surgery. This study aimed to compare cancer-related survivals of patients who underwent laparoscopic or open resection of colon cancer in the same, high volume tertiary center.MethodsPatients who had undergone elective open or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between January 2002 and December 2010 were analyzed. A clinical database was prospectively compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 460 resections were performed. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic (n = 227) and the open group (n = 233) apart from tumor stage: stage I tumors were more frequent in the laparoscopic group whereas stage II tumors were more frequent in the open group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group (20.0 ± 0.7 vs 14.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.01). The 5-year cancer-related survival for patients undergoing laparoscopic resection was significantly higher than that following open resections (83.1% vs 68.5%, P = 0.01). By performing a stage-to-stage comparison, we found that the improvement in survival in the laparoscopic group occurred mainly in patients with stage II tumors.ConclusionsOur study shows a survival advantage for patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery for stage II colon cancer. This may be correlated with a higher number of harvested lymph nodes and thus a better stage stratification of these patients.

Adequacy of lymphadenectomy in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a single-centre, retrospective study.

Purpose: This study aimed at evaluating the lymph node (LN) harvest after both open and laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: In the period between 1996 and 2009, 404 patients with colorectal cancer underwent open resection, whereas 147 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Results: The overall number of harvested LNs was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open one (16.5 vs. 14.3, P<0.001). A higher number of LNs was found in moderately differentiated tumors of the laparoscopic group when compared with the open surgery group (16.7 vs. 14.2, P<0.01). The numbers of harvested LNs in the proximal tumors and in stage II and III tumors were higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (18.9 vs. 15.4, P<0.001; 17.9 vs. 14.2, P=0.002; 17.3 vs. 15.3, P=0.02, respectively). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer can achieve LN retrieval similar to that achieved by the open approach.

Cost–benefit analysis of the intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in primary hyperparathyroidism

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the routine intraoperative intact parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) assay, the role of unilateral and bilateral cervical exploration and of preoperative imaging, and to do a cost–benefit analysis in parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism.

Prevenzione e trattamento della ipocalcemia precoce e tardiva dopo tiroidectomia

Gran parte delle circa 40000 tiroidectomie annuali in Italia prevede un ricovero di una sola notte con grado di efficacia ed efficienza elevate, consentito dalla percentuale modesta di complicanze, dal dolore post operatorio contenuto e dal rapido recupero dei pazienti [1, 2]. A fronte di indubbi vantaggi socio-economici e sulla qualità di vita del paziente, la maggiore riserva riguarda la difficoltà di prevedere e trattare le eventuali complicanze tardive. Le tre complicanze maggiori post-tiroidectomia possono alterare in modo severo le condizioni del paziente fino a metterne a rischio la sopravvivenza (Tabella 1).