Gioia Brachini

Standard laparoscopic versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: early results of a randomized prospective study

BACKGROUND Standard laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) for cancer is a safe, feasible, and oncologically effective procedure with better short-term and similar long-term results of open colectomy. Conversely, owing to technical difficulties in colonic resection and full mesenteric dissection, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) has been considered unsuitable for oncologic purposes. We compared the technical feasibility and early clinical outcomes of SLC and SILC for cancer. METHODS In this prospective randomized clinical trial, 16 (50%) patients underwent SLC (10 left and 6 right) and 16 (50%) patients underwent SILC (8 left and 8 right). RESULTS Demographics, preoperative data, and characteristics of the tumor were similar. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 16 ± 5 in the SLC and 18 ± 6 in the SILC group (P = NS). Surgical time was 124 ± 8 minutes and 147 ± 5 minutes, respectively (P = NS). Surgical mortality was nil and the major morbidity rate was 6.3% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS SILC for cancer is a technically feasible and safe oncologic procedure with short-term results similar to those obtained with a traditional laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic treatment of blunt splenic injuries: initial experience with 11 patients.

BackgroundNonoperative treatment of splenic injuries is the current standard of care for hemodynamically stable patients. However, uncertainty exists about its efficacy for patients with major polytrauma, a high Injury Severity Score (ISS), a high grade of splenic injury, a low Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and important hemoperitoneum. In these cases, the videolaparoscopic approach could allow full abdominal cavity investigation, hemoperitoneum evacuation with autotransfusion, and spleen removal or repair.MethodsThis study investigated 11 hemodynamically stable patients with severe politrauma who underwent emergency laparoscopy. The mean ISS was 29.0 ± 3.9, and the mean GCS was 12.1 ± 1.6. A laparoscopic splenectomy was performed for six patients, whereas splenic hemostasis was achieved for five patients, involving one electrocoagulation, one polar resection, and three polyglycolic mesh wrappings.ResultsThe average length of the operation was 121.4 ± 41.6 min. There were two complications (18.2%), with one conversion to open surgery (9.1%), and no mortality.ConclusionsLaparoscopy is a safe, feasible, and effective procedure for evaluation and treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with splenic injuries for whom nonoperative treatment is controversial.

Feasibility of Colonic and Gastric Standard Laparoscopic Procedures With a Single Skin Incision Approach

W e read with great interest the article by Leroy et al about their innovative singleaccess laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. The rationale for this minimally invasive procedure is the improved cosmetic results; the potential decrease in morbidity related to visceral and vascular injuries during trocar placement; and the lower risk of postoperative wound infection, hernia formation, and pain. By using technical innovations like umbilical, multichannel, single-port, magnetic anchoring; roticulated graspers; and intraluminal assistance for traction, they performed a sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis via a 2-cm single skin incision. However, because of the difficulty in performing full mesenteric dissections, they consider this procedure unsuitable for oncologic resections. We share the authors’ enthusiasm for this innovative technique, but we believe that its promising benefits can also be achieved with a single 4-cm periumbilical skin incision and 3 adjacent trocars inserted through separated fascial sites; conventional instruments; and traction stitches. Using this technique, in the last 6 months we were able to reproduce the standard laparoscopic procedures in performing 12 (8 left and 4 right) colonic resections for cancer, 4 distal gastrectomies for benign (n=2) and malignant (2 D1-resections) diseases, and 1 left hepatic sectionectomy for a recurrent giant cyst. Mortality and morbidity were nil, but 1 left colectomy was converted for bleeding. In conclusion, we think that the singleincision laparoscopic approach is also safe and feasible for gastric and colonic cancer, even if its clinical advantages over standard laparoscopy should be demonstrated by future studies.

Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Decortication of a Giant Peripelvic Renal Cyst

Laparoscopic decortication is currently considered the standard treatment of peripelvic renal cysts, in spite of the technical challenge due to the close contiguity with renal hilar structures. However, to date, few small series or single cases of laparoscopic decortication for symptomatic peripelvic cyst have been reported. In this paper, we report the first case of a giant peripelvic cyst (25 x 18 x 9 cm) treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic decortication in a young adult female. Pain relief and hypertension control were obtained early after surgery, and the patient is symptom free at a 30-month follow-up.

Hollow viscus injuries: predictors of outcome and role of diagnostic delay

Introduction Hollow viscus injuries (HVIs) are uncommon but potentially catastrophic conditions with high mortality and morbidity rates. The aim of this study was to analyze our 16-year experience with patients undergoing surgery for blunt or penetrating bowel trauma to identify prognostic factors with particular attention to the influence of diagnostic delay on outcome. Methods From our multicenter trauma registry, we selected 169 consecutive patients with an HVI, enrolled from 2000 to 2016. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed to assess determinants of mortality, morbidity, and length of stay by univariate and multivariate analysis models. Results Overall mortality and morbidity rates were 15.9% and 36.1%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 23±7 days. Morbidity was independently related to an increase of white blood cells (P=0.01), and to delay of treatment >6 hours (P=0.033), while Injury Severity Score (ISS) (P=0.01), presence of shock (P=0.01), and a low diastolic arterial pressure registered at emergency room admission (P=0.02) significantly affected postoperative mortality. Conclusion There is evidence that patients with clinical signs of shock, low diastolic pressure at admission, and high ISS are at increased risk of postoperative mortality. Leukocytosis and delayed treatment (>6 hours) were independent predictors of postoperative morbidity. More effort should be made to increase the preoperative detection rate of HVI and reduce the delay of treatment.

Operative and nonoperative management for renal trauma: comparison of outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Preservation of kidney and renal function is the goal of nonoperative management (NOM) of renal trauma (RT). The advantages of NOM for minor blunt RT have already been clearly described, but its value for major blunt and penetrating RT is still under debate. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis on NOM for RT, which was compared with the operative management (OM) with respect to mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was followed for this study. A systematic search was performed on Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed for studies published up to December 2015, without language restrictions, which compared NOM versus OM for renal injuries. Results Twenty nonrandomized retrospective cohort studies comprising 13,824 patients with blunt (2,998) or penetrating (10,826) RT were identified. When all RT were considered (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades 1–5), NOM was associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to OM (8.3% vs 17.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.471; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.404–0.548; P<0.001 and 2% vs 53.3%, OR 0.0484; 95% CI 0.0279–0.0839, P<0.001). Likewise, NOM represented the gold standard treatment resulting in a lower mortality rate compared to OM even when only high-grade RT was considered (9.1% vs 17.9%, OR 0.332; 95% CI 0.155–0.708; P=0.004), be they blunt (4.1% vs 8.1%, OR 0.275; 95% CI 0.0957–0.788; P=0.016) or penetrating (9.1% vs 18.1%, OR 0.468; 95% CI 0.398–0.0552; P<0.001). Conclusion Our meta-analysis demonstrated that NOM for RT is the treatment of choice not only for AAST grades 1 and 2, but also for higher grade blunt and penetrating RT.

Emergency treatment of complicated colorectal cancer

Aim To find evidence to suggest the best approach in patients admitted as an emergency for complicated colorectal cancer. Methods The medical records of 131 patients admitted as an emergency with an obstructing, perforated, or bleeding colorectal cancer to Noble’s Hospital, Isle of Man, and the Umberto I University Hospital, Rome, were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided in 3 groups on the basis of the emergency treatment they received, namely 1) immediate resection, 2) damage control procedure and elective or semielective resection, and 3) no radical treatment. Demographic variables, clinical data, and treatment data were considered, and formed the basis for the comparison of groups. Primary endpoints were 90-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, number of lymph nodes analyzed, rate of radical R0 resections, and the number of patients who had chemoradiotherapy. Results Forty-two patients did not have any radical treatment because the cancer was too advanced or they were too ill to tolerate an operation, 78 patients had immediate resection and 11 had damage control followed by elective resection. There was no statistically significant difference between immediate resections and 2-stage treatment in 90-day mortality and morbidity (mortality: 15.4% vs 0%; morbidity: 26.9% vs 27.3%), number of nodes retrieved (16.6±9.4 vs 14.9±5.7), and rate of R0 resections (84.6% vs 90.9%), but mortality was slightly higher in patients who underwent immediate resection. The patients who underwent staged treatment had a higher possibility of receiving a laparoscopic resection (11.5% vs 36.4%). Conclusion The present study failed to demonstrate a clear superiority of one treatment with respect to the other, even if there is an interesting trend favoring staged resection.