Claudio Renzi

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage: a definitive treatment for diverticular peritonitis or a "bridge" to elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy?: a systematic review.

AbstractTo this day, the treatment of generalized peritonitis secondary to diverticular perforation is still controversial. Recently, in patients with acute sigmoid diverticulitis, laparoscopic lavage and drainage has gained a wide interest as an alternative to resection. Based on this backdrop, we decided to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of peritoneal lavage in perforated diverticular disease.A bibliographic search was performed in PubMed for case series and comparative studies published between January 1992 and February 2014 describing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in patients with perforated diverticulitis.A total of 19 articles consisting of 10 cohort studies, 8 case series, and 1 controlled clinical trial met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. In total these studies analyzed data from 871 patients. The mean follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 96 months when reported. In 11 studies, the success rate of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, defined as patients alive without surgical treatment for a recurrent episode of diverticulitis, was 24.3%. In patients with Hinchey stage III diverticulitis, the incidence of laparotomy conversion was 1%, whereas in patients with stage IV it was 45%. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 2.9%. The 30-day postoperative reintervention rate was 4.9%, whereas 2% of patients required a percutaneous drainage. Readmission rate after the first hospitalization for recurrent diverticulitis was 6%. Most patients who were readmitted (69%) required redo surgery. A 2-stage laparoscopic intervention was performed in 18.3% of patients.Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage should be considered an effective and safe option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid diverticulitis with Hinchey stage III peritonitis; it can also be consider as a “bridge” surgical step combined with a delayed and elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in order to avoid a Hartmann procedure. This minimally invasive staged approach should be considered for patients without systemic toxicity and in centers experienced in minimally invasive surgery techniques. Further evidence is needed, and the ongoing RCTs will better define the role of the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage/drainage in the treatment of patients with complicated diverticulitis.

New Trends in Acute Management of Colonic Diverticular Bleeding: A Systematic Review.

AbstractColonic diverticular disease is the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. In the past, this condition was usually managed with urgent colectomy. Recently, the development of endoscopy and interventional radiology has led to a change in the management of colonic diverticular bleeding.The aim of this systematic review is to define the best treatment for colonic diverticular bleeding.A systematic bibliographic research was performed on the online databases for studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational trials, case series, and case reports) published between 2005 and 2014, concerning patients admitted with a diagnosis of diverticular bleeding according to the PRISMA methodology.The outcomes of interest were: diagnosis of diverticulosis as source of bleeding; incidence of self-limiting diverticular bleeding; management of non self-limiting bleeding (endoscopy, angiography, surgery); and recurrent diverticular bleeding.Fourteen studies were retrieved for analysis. No RCTs were found. Eleven non-randomized clinical controlled trials (NRCCTs) were included in this systematic review. In all studies, the definitive diagnosis of diverticular bleeding was always made by urgent colonoscopy. The colonic diverticular bleeding stopped spontaneously in over 80% of the patients, but a re-bleeding was not rare. Recently, interventional endoscopy and angiography became the first-line approach, thus relegating emergency colectomy to patients presenting with hemodynamic instability or as a second-line treatment after failure or complications of hemostasis with less invasive treatments.Colonoscopy is effective to diagnose diverticular bleeding. Nowadays, interventional endoscopy and angiographic treatment have gained a leading role and colectomy should only be entertained in case of failure of the former.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics. Results A total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches. Conclusions The present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with or without preservation of spleen: a technical note

BackgroundDistal pancreatectomy (DP) is a surgical procedure performed to remove the pancreatic tail jointly with a variable part of the pancreatic body and including a spleen resection in the case of conventional distal pancreatectomy or not in the spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy.MethodsIn this article, we describe a standardized operative technique for fully robotic distal pancreatectomy.ResultsIn the last decade, the use of robotic systems has become increasingly common as an approach for benign and malignant pancreatic disease treatment. Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy (RDP) is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions in surgical oncology are still not available because the follow-up period after surgery is too short (less than 2 years).ConclusionsRDP is an emerging technology for which sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions of value in surgical oncology are still not available, however this techniques is safe and reproducible by surgeons that possess adequate skills.

Right hemicolectomy plus pancreaticoduodenectomy vs partial duodenectomy in treatment of locally advanced right colon cancer invading pancreas and/or only duodenum

INTRODUCTION Pancreatic or duodenal invasion by locally advanced right colon cancer is an unusual event whose management still represents a surgical challenge. This review aims to compare results of limited vs. extended resection in case of primary right colon cancer invading pancreas and/or duodenum. METHODS A systematic search in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed. All trials describing the surgical treatment of right colon cancer invading pancreas and/or duodenum were considered. A data extraction sheet was developed, based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Groups data extraction template. RESULTS 5-years overall survival was 52% after en bloc pancreaticoduodenectomy plus right hemicolectomy vs. 0 and 25% in case of duodenal resection with correction by direct suture or pedicled ileal flap, respectively. 30-day postoperative morbidity rate was slightly higher after en block resections (12.8%) with respect to duodenal local resection and direct suture or pedicled ileal flap repair (0 and 12.2%, respectively). After extended resection the rate of pancreatico-jejunal anastomotic leakage was 7.7%. CONCLUSIONS In patients with right colon cancer extended to the pancreas and/or duodenum surgical multivisceral resection is suggested when complete tumour removal (R0) is achievable. Even though no significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality have been shown, 5 y OS has improved in extended resections as compared to duodenal local resection with defect repair either by direct suture or by a pedicled ileal flap.

Role of Damage Control Surgery in the Treatment of Hinchey III and IV Sigmoid Diverticulitis: A Tailored Strategy

Abstract Many of the treatment strategies for sigmoid diverticulitis are actually focusing on nonoperative and minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the actual role of damage control surgery (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis caused by perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published from 1960 to July 2013. Comparative and noncomparative studies that included patients who underwent DCS for complicated diverticulitis were considered. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, duration of open abdomen, intensive care unit length of stay, reoperation, bowel resection performed at first operation, fecal diversion, method, and timing of closure of abdominal wall were the main outcomes of interest. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses algorithm for the literature search and review, 10 studies were included in this systematic review. DCS was exclusively performed in diverticulitis patients with septic shock or requiring vasopressors intraoperatively. Two surgical different approaches were highlighted: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment with or without stoma or reconstruction in situ, and laparoscopic washing and drainage without colonic resection. Despite the heterogeneity of patient groups, clinical settings, and interventions included in this review, DCS appears to be a promising strategy for the treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis, complicated by septic shock. A tailored approach to each patient seems to be appropriate.

Case series of non-operative management vs. operative management of splenic injury after blunt trauma

BACKGROUND The spleen is the most easily injured organ in abdominal trauma. The conservative, operative approach has been challenged by several reports of successful non-operative management aided by the power of modern diagnostic imaging. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare non-operative management with surgery for cases of splenic injury. METHODS We compared seven patients who were treated with non-operative management (NOM) between 2007 and 2011 to six patients with similar pre-operative characteristics who underwent operative management (OM). RESULTS The average hospital stay was lower in the NOM group than in the OM group, although the difference was not statistically significant. The NOM group required significantly fewer transfusions, and no patients in the NOM group required admission to the intensive care unit. In contrast 83% of patients in the OM group were admitted to the intensive care unity. The failure rate of NOM was 14.3% in our experience. CONCLUSION In our experience, NOM is the treatment of choice for grade I, II and III blunt splenic injuries. NOM is slightly less than surgery, but this is an unadjusted comparison and the 95% confidence interval is extremely wide - from 0.04 to 16.99. Splenectomy was the chosen technique in patients who met exclusion criteria for NOM, as well as for patients with grade IV and V injury.

A case of a paraduodenal hernia with a concomitant mesosigmoid defect

IntroductionIntestinal obstruction by congenital internal hernia is rare and unsuspected.Case reportWe report the case of a 45 years-old-man diagnosed to have an intestinal obstruction caused by a double concomitant internal hernia. CT scan can provide a fast diagnosis in order not to delay the surgical intervention: the ileum had been entrapped into a big internal hernia between the transverse and the descending colon and the patient was diagnosed to have a paraduodenal hernia. During the intervention a concomitant mesosigmoid defect was found.ResultsOur patient had a left paraduodenal hernia with much of the small bowel crowned into a round peritoneal membrane just in front and left to the duodenum and pancreas and between the transverse and descending colon. CT scan showed encapsulated cluster of small bowel loops in the hernia sac. He was taken up for surgery and an urgent laparoscopic access was performed for definitive diagnosis and treatment 4 days after the beginning of the symptoms.ConclusionsCongenital Internal Hernia should be considered as a cause of bowel obstruction in absence of previous abdominal surgery and, even if preoperative diagnosis of a paraduodenal hernia is difficult, it must be considered as part of differential diagnosis.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a case of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

BackgroundLaparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is rarely performed, and it has not been particularly successful due to its technical complexity. The objective of this study is to highlight how robotic surgery could improve a minimally invasive approach and to expose the usefulness of robotic surgery even in complex surgical procedures.Case presentationThe surgical technique employed in our center to perform a pancreaticoduodenectomy, which was by means of the da Vinci™ robotic system in order to remove a duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumor, is reported.ConclusionsRobotic technology has improved significantly over the traditional laparoscopic approach, representing an evolution of minimally invasive techniques, allowing procedures to be safely performed that are still considered to be scarcely feasible or reproducible.

Surgery in asymptomatic patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastases: the authors' experience

Purpose In asymptomatic patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer, the debate continues over the efficacy of primary resection compared to chemotherapy alone. The aim of this study was to define the optimal management for asymptomatic patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastases. Patients and methods Patients receiving elective surgery (n = 17) were compared to patients receiving chemotherapy only (n = 31). Data concerning patients’ demographics, location of primary tumor, comorbidities, performance status, Child–Pugh score, extension of liver metastases, size of primary, and other secondary locations were collected. Results Thirty-day mortality after chemotherapy was lower than that after surgical resection (19.3% versus 29.4%; not significant). In patients with >75% hepatic involvement, mortality at 1 month was higher after receiving surgical treatment than after chemotherapy alone (50% versus 25%). In patients with <75% hepatic involvement, 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (not significant). Thirty-day mortality in patients with Stage T3 was lower in those receiving chemotherapy (16.7% versus 30%; not significant). Overall survival was similar in both groups. The risk of all-cause death after elective surgery (2.1) was significantly higher than in patients receiving chemotherapy only (P = 0.035). Conclusion This study demonstrated that in palliative treatment of asymptomatic unresectable Stage IV colorectal cancer, the overall risk of death was significantly higher after elective surgery compared to patients receiving chemotherapy alone. However, in the literature, there is no substantial difference between these treatments. New studies are required to better evaluate outcomes.