Search

Background: This multicentre case–control study aimed to identify risk factors associated with non-operative treatment failure for patients with CT scan Hinchey Ib-IIb and WSES Ib-IIa diverticular abscesses. Methods: This study included a cohort of adult patients experiencing their first episode of CT-diagnosed diverticular abscess, all of whom underwent initial non-operative treatment comprising either antibiotics alone or in combination with percutaneous drainage. The cohort was stratified based on the outcome of non-operative treatment, specifically identifying those who required emergency surgical intervention as cases of treatment failure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors associated with the failure of non-operative treatment was employed. Results: Failure of conservative treatment occurred for 116 patients (27.04%). CT scan Hinchey classification IIb (aOR 2.54, 95%CI 1.61;4.01, P< 0.01), tobacco smoking (aOR 2.01, 95%CI 1.24;3.25, P< 0.01), and presence of air bubbles inside the abscess (aOR 1.59, 95%CI 1.00;2.52, P= 0.04) were independent predictors of failure. In the subgroup of patients with abscesses > 5 cm, percutaneous drainage was not associated with the risk of failure or success of the non-operative treatment (aOR 2.78, 95%CI − 0.66;3.70, P= 0.23). Conclusions: Non-operative treatment is generally effective for diverticular abscesses. Tobacco smoking's role as an independent risk factor for treatment failure underscores the need for targeted behavioural interventions in diverticular disease management. IIb Hinchey diverticulitis patients, particularly young smokers, require vigilant monitoring due to increased risks of treatment failure and septic progression. Further research into the efficacy of image-guided percutaneous drainage should involve randomized, multicentre studies focussing on homogeneous patient groups. Graphical abstract:

Purpose: This study assessed the performance of LLM-linked chatbots in providing accurate advice for colorectal cancer screening to both clinicians and patients. Methods: We created standardized prompts for nine patient cases varying by age and family history to query ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Google Bard, and Claude 2 for screening recommendations to clinicians. Chatbots were asked to specify which screening test was indicated and the frequency of interval screening. Separately, the chatbots were queried with lay terminology for screening advice to patients. Clinician and patient advice was compared to guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer. Results: Based on USPSTF criteria, clinician advice aligned with 3/4 (75.0%), 2/4 (50.0%), 3/4 (75.0%), and 1/4 (25.0%) cases for ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Google Bard, and Claude 2, respectively. With CCS criteria, clinician advice corresponded to 2/4 (50.0%), 2/4 (50.0%), 2/4 (50.0%), and 1/4 (25.0%) cases for ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Google Bard, respectively. For USMSTF guidelines, clinician advice aligned with 7/9 (77.8%), 5/9 (55.6%), 6/9 (66.7%), and 3/9 (33.3%) cases for ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Google Bard, and Claude 2, respectively. Discordant advice was given to clinicians and patients for 2/9 (22.2%), 3/9 (33.3%), 2/9 (22.2%), and 3/9 (33.3%) cases for ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Google Bard, and Claude 2, respectively. Clinical advice provided by the chatbots stemmed from a range of sources including the American Cancer Society (ACS), USPSTF, USMSTF, and the CCS. Conclusion: LLM-linked chatbots provide colorectal cancer screening recommendations with inconsistent accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Clinicians must educate patients on the pitfalls of using these platforms for health advice.

Obesity/overweight and its complications are a growing problem in many countries. Italian Society of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery for Obesity (Società Italiana di Chirurgia dell'Obesità e delle Malattie Metaboliche-SICOB) decided to develop the first Italian guidelines for the endoscopic bariatric treatment of obesity. The creation of SICOB Guidelines is based on an extended work made by a panel of 44 members and a coordinator. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology has been used to decide the aims, reference population, and target health professionals. Clinical questions have been created using the PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) conceptual framework. We will perform systematic reviews, formal meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses for each PICO and critical outcomes aimed at assessing and rating the efficacy and safety of endoscopic bariatric procedures in comparison with either no interventions, lifestyle interventions, or approved anti-obesity treatments in trials with a follow-up of at least 52 weeks. For PICO on temporary endoscopic bariatric treatments, we will also consider RCT with a minimum duration of 6 months. The panel proposed 8 questions, organized into four domains: A. Indication for endoscopic bariatric surgery; B. Revisional surgery; C. Temporary gastric and duodenal–jejunal procedures; D. Endoscopic diagnosis/treatment of bariatric and metabolic surgery complications. These guidelines will apply to patients aged ≥ 14 years) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2and requiring endoscopic bariatric surgery or endoscopic diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures. The areas covered by the clinical questions included indications of endoscopic bariatric surgery, types of surgery, revisional surgery, and management of bariatric and metabolic surgery complications.

ObjectiveThe standard treatment for epilepsy is based on the appropriate use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) to prevent the recurrence of seizures. For the newer ASMs, however, little information on their safety profile is available. This work sought to fill this gap by creating a database for ASM use in a paediatric hospital and the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported.MethodsThis observational single-centre study was conducted from January 2018 to December 2020 and recorded the type of ASM treatment for paediatric epileptic patients cared for at the Neuropsychiatry Unit of the Salesi Paediatric Hospital in Ancona, Italy, as well as any ADRs.ResultsIn all, 519 patients were admitted to the ward with a diagnosis of epilepsy, 362 (69.7%) of whom were prescribed ASMs. Valproic acid was the most frequently prescribed drug (29.96%), followed by levetiracetam (13.97%) and carbamazepine (9.16%). We recorded 24 ADRs in 20 patients, half of which (n=12) occurred with polytherapy. Among the ADRs associated with monotherapy, 25% (n=6) were induced by carbamazepine; 12.5% (n=3) were associated with either valproic acid, clonazepam or lamotrigine; 8.3% (n=2) were associated with perampanel, clobazam or levetiracetam; while one patient experienced ADR due to vigabatrin, one due to ethosuximide and one due to cannabidiol. The median patient age was 7.5 years and most ADRs were not serious.ConclusionDuring the 3-year observation period, 6% of epileptic patients on ASMs showed one or more ADRs. Carbamazepine was responsible for about a quarter of these reactions, two of which were serious. Half of the ADRs occurred with polytherapy, which often included valproic acid and stiripentol. It is to be hoped that such active pharmacovigilance through the collaboration of hospital pharmacists and physicians will serve to improve the management of treatment.

Background: New evidence has emerged since latest guidelines on the management of paraesophageal hernia, and guideline development methodology has evolved. Members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery have prioritized the management of paraesophageal hernia to be addressed by pertinent recommendations. Objective: To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on paraesophageal hernias, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We performed three systematic reviews, and we summarized and appraised the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. A panel of general and upper gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists and a patient advocate discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost and use of resources, moderated by a Guidelines International Network-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. Results: The panel suggests surgery over conservative management for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias (conditional recommendation), and recommends conservative management over surgery for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias in frail patients (strong recommendation). Further, the panel suggests mesh over sutures for hiatal closure in paraesophageal hernia repair, fundoplication over gastropexy in elective paraesophageal hernia repair, and gastropexy over fundoplication in patients who have cardiopulmonary instability and require emergency paraesophageal hernia repair (conditional recommendation). A strong recommendation means that the proposed course of action is appropriate for the vast majority of patients. A conditional recommendation means that most patients would opt for the proposed course of action, and joint decision-making of the surgeon and the patient is required. Accompanying evidence summaries and evidence-to-decision frameworks should be read when using the recommendations. This guideline applies to adult patients with moderate to large paraesophageal hernias type II to IV with at least 50% of the stomach herniated to the thoracic cavity. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j7q7Gn. Conclusion: An interdisciplinary panel provides recommendations on key topics on the management of paraesophageal hernias using highest methodological standards and following a transparent process. Guideline registration number: PREPARE-2023CN018.

Background: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. Objective: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. Results: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej. Conclusion: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders.

Several objective severity measurement questionnaires of the fecal incontinence (FI), are available to describe type, frequency and degree of FI, and their impact on quality of life, aiming to establish baseline scores measure response to treatment over time and allow comparison among patients treated using different strategies. Presently, despite their widespread use in clinical practice, none of these questionnaire have been validated in the Italian language. The aim is to test the translated Italian version of the Vaizey and Wexner and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) questionnaires assessing their reliability and validity among Italian-speaking patients. Two researchers proficient in spoken English and Italian translated both questionnaires in the Italian language. They independently translated the two questionnaires from English and then they met to produce a single version of the two questionnaires, to solve any possible discrepancy. A forward–backward translation was then obtained by a professional bilingual translator, so as to define the final version of the questionnaires. The questionnaires were independently administered twice to 100 Italian-speaking patients by two different and independent raters. Cronbach’s α of the first and second Vaizey and Wexner questionnaire was 0.755 and 0.727, respectively. While Cronbach’s α of the first and second FISI questionnaire was 0.810 and 0.806, respectively. Spearman correlation and inter-rater reliability were 0.937 and 0.913 for Vaizey and Wexner questionnaire, respectively, and 0.915 and 0.871 for FISI questionnaire, respectively. Italian version of the Vaizey and Wexner and FISI questionnaires proved good consistency, reliability, reproducibility, showing good psychometric properties.

Since 2010, several guidelines and consensus papers have been proposed to support surgeons in the decision-making process (Cuccurullo et al. in Hernia 17(5):557–566, 2013; Silecchia et al. in Surg Endosc 29:2463–2484, 2015; Bittner et al. in Surg Endosc 33(11):3511–3549, 2015) with the conclusion that laparoscopic repair (LR) has gained popularity in the treatment of IH.

Primary and incisional ventral hernias are significant public health issues for their prevalence, variability of professional practices, and high costs associated with the treatment In 2019, the Board of Directors of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted the development of new guidelines on the laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias, according to the new national regulation. In 2022, the guideline was accepted by the government agency, and it was published, in Italian, on the SNLG website. Here, we report the adopted methodology and the guideline’s recommendations, as established in its diffusion policy. This guideline is produced according to the methodology indicated by the SNGL and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Fifteen recommendations were produced as a result of 4 PICO questions. The level of recommendation was conditional for 12 of them and conditional to moderate for one. This guideline's strengths include relying on an extensive systematic review of the literature and applying a rigorous GRADE method. It also has several limitations. The literature on the topic is continuously and rapidly evolving; our results are based on findings that need constant re-appraisal. It is focused only on minimally invasive techniques and cannot consider broader issues (e.g., diagnostics, indication for surgery, pre-habilitation).

Introduction: According to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Materials and methods: On behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447). Results: Twenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD − 1.33; 95% CI − 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables. Conclusions: HEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.

Graphical abstract:

Unhealthy diets are a major contributor to the global burden of disease, and food systems cause substantial environmental destruction. To lay out how to achieve healthy diets for all, within planetary boundaries, the landmark EAT–LancetCommission proposed the planetary health diet, which includes a range of possible intakes by food group and substantially restricts the intake of highly processed foods and animal source foods globally. However, concerns have been raised about the extent to which the diet provides adequate essential micronutrients, particularly those generally found in higher quantities and in more bioavailable forms in animal source foods. To address these concerns, we matched each food group point estimate within the respective range with globally representative food composition data. We then compared the resulting dietary nutrient intakes with globally harmonised recommended nutrient intakes for adults and women of reproductive age for six micronutrients that are globally scarce. To fill the dietary gaps that were estimated for vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and zinc, we suggest modifications to the original planetary health diet to achieve micronutrient adequacy (without fortification or supplementation) for adults, which included increasing the proportion of animal source foods and reducing foods high in phytate.

Background: Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes. Methods: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed ≧12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length ≧ 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate. Results : A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p= 0.004 and Gray’s tests p= 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray’s tests p= 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p= 0.109 and p= 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI − 4.7% to ∞). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference − 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI − 5.0% to ∞). Conclusions: Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection.

Aims: The identification of the anatomical components of the Calot’s Triangle during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) might be challenging and its difficulty may increase when a surgical trainee (ST) is in charge, ultimately allegedly affecting also the incidence of common bile duct injuries (CBDIs). There are various methods to help reach the critical view of safety (CVS): intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), critical view of safety in white light (CVS-WL) and near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (NIRF-C). The primary objective was to compare the use of these techniques to obtain the CVS during elective LC performed by ST. Methods: This was a multicentre prospective observational study (Clinicalstrials.gov Registration number: NCT04863482). The impact of three different visualization techniques (IOC, CVS-WL, NIRF-C) on LC was analyzed. Operative time and time to achieve the CVS were considered. All the participating surgeons were also required to fill in three questionnaires at the end of the operation focusing on anatomical identification of the general task and their satisfaction. Results: Twenty-nine centers participated for a total of 338 patients: 260 CVS-WL, 10 IOC and 68 NIRF-C groups. Conclusions: These data showed that using NIRF-C did not prolong operative time but positively influenced the surgeon's satisfaction of the performance of LC.

Minimally invasive abdominal wall surgery is growing worldwide, with a constant and fast improvement of surgical techniques and surgeons’ confidence in treating both primary and incisional hernias (IH). The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (SICE) and the ISHAWS (Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) worked together to investigate state of the art in IH treatment in elective and emergency settings in Italy. An online open survey was designed, and Italian surgeons interested in abdominal wall surgery were invited to fill out a 20-point questionnaire on IH surgical procedures performed in their departments. Surgeons were asked to express their points of view on specific questions about technical and clinical variables in IH treatment. Preferred approach in elective IH surgery was minimally invasive (59.7%). Open surgery was the preferred approach in 40.3% of the responses. In emergency settings, open surgery was the preferred approach (65.4%); however, 34.5% of the involved surgeons declare to prefer the laparoscopic/endoscopic approach. Most respondents opted for conversion to open surgery in case of relevant surgical field contamination, with a non-mesh repair of abdominal wall defects. Among those that used the laparoscopic approach in the emergent setting, the majority (74%) used the size of the defect of 5 cm as a decisional cut-off. The spread of minimally invasive approaches to IH repair in emergency surgery in Italy is gaining relevance. Code-sharing through scientific societies can improve clinical practice in different departments and promote a tailored approach to IH surgery.

Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery is the gold standard treatment for adrenal masses, but it may be a challenging procedure in the case of pheochromocytoma (PHEO). The aim of the present study is to report the results of transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (TLA) in cases of PHEO in comparison to other types of adrenal lesions. Methods: From 1994 to 2021, 629 patients underwent adrenalectomy. Twenty-two and thirty-five patients, respectively, were excluded because they underwent bilateral and open adrenalectomy, leaving 572 patients for inclusion. Of these, 114 patients had PHEO (Group A), and 458 had other types of lesions (Group B). To adjust for potential baseline confounders, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted. Results: After PSM, 114 matched pairs of patients were identified from each group. Statistically significant differences were not observed when comparing the median operative time (85 and 90 min in Groups A and B, respectively, p= 0.627), conversion rate [6 (5.3%) in each group, p= 1.000], transfusion rate [4 (3.5%) and 3 (2.6%) in Groups A and B, respectively, p= 1.000], complication rate [7 (6.1%) and 9 (7.9%) in Groups A and B, respectively, p= 0.796), median postoperative hospital stay (3.9 and 3.6 days in Groups A and B, respectively, p= 0.110), and mortality rate [1 (0.9%) in each group, p= 1.000]. Conclusions: Based on this analysis, the results of TLA for PHEO are equivalent to those of TLA for other types of adrenal lesions, but the fundamental requirements are multidisciplinary patient management and adequate surgeon experience. Further prospective studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.

Introduction: Artificial intelligence and computer vision are revolutionizing the way we perceive video analysis in minimally invasive surgery. This emerging technology has increasingly been leveraged successfully for video segmentation, documentation, education, and formative assessment. New, sophisticated platforms allow pre-determined segments chosen by surgeons to be automatically presented without the need to review entire videos. This study aimed to validate and demonstrate the accuracy of the first reported AI-based computer vision algorithm that automatically recognizes surgical steps in videos of totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. Methods: Videos of TEP procedures were manually labeled by a team of annotators trained to identify and label surgical workflow according to six major steps. For bilateral hernias, an additional change of focus step was also included. The videos were then used to train a computer vision AI algorithm. Performance accuracy was assessed in comparison to the manual annotations. Results: A total of 619 full-length TEP videos were analyzed: 371 were used to train the model, 93 for internal validation, and the remaining 155 as a test set to evaluate algorithm accuracy. The overall accuracy for the complete procedure was 88.8%. Per-step accuracy reached the highest value for the hernia sac reduction step (94.3%) and the lowest for the preperitoneal dissection step (72.2%). Conclusions: These results indicate that the novel AI model was able to provide fully automated video analysis with a high accuracy level. High-accuracy models leveraging AI to enable automation of surgical video analysis allow us to identify and monitor surgical performance, providing mathematical metrics that can be stored, evaluated, and compared. As such, the proposed model is capable of enabling data-driven insights to improve surgical quality and demonstrate best practices in TEP procedures. Graphical abstract:

Since its introduction, the minimally invasive treatment of groin hernias has become widely accepted as a viable alternative to open surgery. Still, the rates and reasons for its adoption vary highly among countries and the regions within a country. After almost thirty years since its introduction, its spread is still limited. The present study, conducted under the auspices of AGENAS (Italian National Agency for Regional Services), aims at giving a snapshot of the spreading of minimally invasive and robotic techniques for the treatment of groin hernia in Italy. This study is retrospective, with data covering the period from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020. AGENAS provided data using the operation and diagnosis codes used at discharge and reported in the International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9 2002 version). Admissions performed on an outpatient basis, i.e., without an overnight stay of at least one night in hospital, were excluded. A total of 33,925 laparoscopic hernia repairs were performed during the considered period. Overall, a slight increase in the number of procedures performed was observed from 2015 to 2019, with a mean annual change of 8.60% (CI: 6.46–10.74; p< 0.0001). The number of laparoscopic procedures dropped in 2020, and when considering the whole period, the mean annual change was − 0.98% (CI: − 7.41–5.45; p< 0.0001). Urgent procedures ranged from 335 in 2015 to 508 in 2020 referring to absolute frequencies, and from 0.87% to 9.8% in relative frequencies of overall procedures in 2017 and 2020, respectively (mean = 4.51%; CI = 3.02%–6%; p< 0.001). The most relevant observation that could be made according to our analysis was that the adoption of the laparoscopic approach knew a slow but steady increase from 2015 onward.

Background: Several reports demonstrated a strong association between the level of adherence to the protocol and improved clinical outcomes after surgery. However, it is difficult to obtain full adherence to the protocol into clinical practice and has still not been identified the threshold beyond which improved functional results can be reached. Methods: The ERCOLE (ERas and COLorectal Endoscopic surgery) study was as a cohort, prospective, multi-centre national study evaluating the association between adherence to ERAS items and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was to associate the percentage of ERAS adherence to functional recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. The secondary endpoints of the study was to validate safety of the ERAS programme evaluating complications’ occurrence according to Clavien-Dindo classification and to evaluate the compliance of the Italian surgeons to each ERAS item. Results: 1138 patients were included. Adherence to the ERAS protocol was full only in 101 patients (8.9%), > 75% of the ERAS items in 736 (64.7%) and > 50% in 1127 (99%). Adherence to > 75% was associated with a better functional recovery with 90.2 ± 98.8 vs 95.9 ± 33.4 h (p= 0.003). At difference, full adherence to the ERAS components 91.7 ± 22.1 vs 92.2 ± 31.6 h (p= 0.8) was not associated with better recovery. Conclusions: Our results were encouraging to affirm that adherence to the ERAS program up to 75% could be considered satisfactory to get the goal. Our study could be considered a call to simplify the ERAS protocol facilitating its penetrance into clinical practice.

Introduction: It has been previously demonstrated that the rise of intra-abdominal pressures and prolonged exposure to such pressures can produce changes in the cardiovascular and pulmonary dynamic which, though potentially well tolerated in the majority of healthy patients with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, may be less well tolerated when cardiopulmonary reserve is poor. Materials and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 44 randomized controlled trials that compared different pressures of pneumoperitoneum in the setting of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Length of hospital, conversion rate, and complications rate were not significantly different, whereas statistically significant differences were observed in post-operative pain and analgesic consumption. According to the GRADE criteria, overall quality of evidence was high for intra-operative bile spillage (critical outcome), overall complications (critical outcome), shoulder pain (critical outcome), and overall post-operative pain (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was moderate for conversion to open surgery (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 1 day (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 3 days (important outcome), and bleeding (critical outcome). Overall quality of evidence was low for operative time (important outcome), length of hospital stay (important outcome), post-operative pain at 12 h (critical outcome), and was very low for post-operative pain at 1 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 4 h (critical outcome), post-operative pain at 8 h (critical outcome), and post-operative pain at 2 days (critical outcome). Conclusions: This review allowed us to draw conclusive results from the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with an adequate quality of evidence.

Background: A difficulty score for laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is lacking in the literature. A retrospective cohort study was designed to develop a preoperative “difficulty score” for LA. Methods: A multicenter study was conducted involving four Italian tertiary centers for adrenal disease. The population was randomly divided into two subsets: training group and validation one. A multicenter study was undertaken, including 964 patients. Patient, adrenal lesion, surgeon’s characteristics, and the type of procedure were studied as potential predictors of target events. The operative time (pOT), conversion rate (cLA), or both were used as indicators of the difficulty in three multivariate models. All models were developed in a training cohort (70% of the sample) and validated using 30% of patients. For all models, the ability to predict complicated postoperative course was reported describing the area under the curve (AUCs). Logistic regression, reporting odds ratio (OR) with p-value, was used. Results: In model A, gender (OR 2.04, p= 0.001), BMI (OR 1.07, p= 0.002), previous surgery (OR 1.29, p= 0.048), site (OR 21.8, p&lt; 0.001) and size of the lesion (OR 1.16, p= 0.002), cumulative sum of procedures (OR 0.99, p&lt; 0.001), extended (OR 26.72, p&lt; 0.001) or associated procedures (OR 4.32, p= 0.015) increased the pOT. In model B, ASA (OR 2.86, p= 0.001), lesion size (OR 1.20, p= 0.005), and extended resection (OR 8.85, p= 0.007) increased the cLA risk. Model C had similar results to model A. All scores obtained predicted the target events in validation cohort (OR 1.99, p&lt; 0.001; OR 1.37, p= 0.007; OR 1.70, p&lt; 0.001, score A, B, and C, respectively). The AUCs in predicting complications were 0.740, 0.686, and 0.763 for model A, B, and C, respectively. Conclusion: A difficulty score based on both pOT and cLA (Model C) was developed using 70% of the sample. The score was validated using a second cohort. Finally, the score was tested, and its results are able to predict a complicated postoperative course.

Background: Some authors consider adrenal lesions size of less than 4 cm as a positive cut-off limit to set the indications for minimally invasive surgery due to a lower risk of malignancy. Aim of this study is to report the risk of cancer for adrenal lesions measuring 4 cm or more in diameter, assessed as benign at preoperative workup (primary outcome), and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) in these cases (secondary outcome). Methods: From January 1994 to February 2019, 579 patients underwent adrenalectomy. Fifty patients with a preoperative diagnosis of primary adrenal cancer or metastases were excluded. The remaining 529 patients were included and divided in five subgroups based on adrenal lesion size at definitive histology: group A, 4–5.9 cm (137 patients); group B, 6–7.9 cm (64 patients); group C, 8–9.9 cm (13 patients); group D, ≥ 10 cm (11 patients); group E, &lt; 4 cm (304 patients). Each group was further divided based on diagnosis of benign or malignant lesions at definitive histology. Results: Four (2.9%) malignant lesions were observed in group A, 5 (7.8%) in group B, 2 (15.4%) in Groups C and D (18.2%) and 13 (4.3%) in Group E. Comparing the cancer risk among the groups, no statistically significant differences were observed. Operative time increased with increasing lesion size. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between benign and malignant lesions in each group comparing operative time, conversion and complication rates, postoperative hospital stay and mortality rate. Conclusions: Adrenal lesions measuring 4 cm or more in diameter are not a contraindication for LA neither in terms of cancer risk nor of conversion and morbidity rates, even if the operative time increases with increasing adrenal lesion diameter. Further prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to draw definitive conclusions.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a widespread approach in general surgery. Computer guiding software, such as the augmented reality (AR), the virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR), has been proposed to help surgeons during MIS. This study aims to report these technologies' current knowledge and diffusion during surgical training in Italy. A web-based survey was developed under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE). Two hundred and seventeen medical doctors’ answers were analyzed. Participants were surgeons (138, 63.6%) and residents in surgery (79, 36.4%). The mean knowledge of the role of the VR, AR and MR in surgery was 4.9 ± 2.4 (range 1–10). Most of the participants (122, 56.2%) did not have experience with any proposed technologies. However, although the lack of experience in this field, the answers about the functioning of the technologies were correct in most cases. Most of the participants answered that VR, AR and MR should be used more frequently for the teaching and training and during the clinical activity (170, 80.3%) and that such technologies would make a significant contribution, especially in training (183, 84.3%) and didactic (156, 71.9%). Finally, the main limitations to the diffusion of these technologies were the insufficient knowledge (182, 83.9%) and costs (175, 80.6%). Based on the present study, in Italy, the knowledge and dissemination of these technologies are still limited. Further studies are required to establish the usefulness of AR, VR and MR in surgical training.

IMPORTANCE: Extending the interval between the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery may enhance tumor response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, data on the association of delaying surgery with long-term outcome in patients who had a minor or poor response are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess a large series of patients who had minor or no tumor response to CRT and the association of shorter or longer waiting times between CRT and surgery with short- and long-term outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Data from 1701 consecutive patients with rectal cancer treated in 12 Italian referral centers were analyzed for colorectal surgery between January 2000 and December 2014. Patients with a minor or null tumor response (ypT stage of 2 to 3 or ypN positive) stage greater than 0 to neoadjuvant CRT were selected for the study. The data were analyzed between March and July 2020. EXPOSURES: Patients who had a minor or null tumor response were divided into 2 groups according to the wait time between neoadjuvant therapy end and surgery. Differences in surgical and oncological outcomes between these 2 groups were explored. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were overall and disease-free survival between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of a total of 1064 patients, 654 (61.5%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 64 (55-71) years. A total of 579 patients (54.4%) had a shorter wait time (8 weeks or less) 485 patients (45.6%) had a longer wait time (greater than 8 weeks). A longer waiting time before surgery was associated with worse 5- and 10-year overall survival rates (67.6% [95% CI, 63.1%-71.7%] vs 80.3% [95% CI, 76.5%-83.6%] at 5 years; 40.1% [95% CI, 33.5%-46.5%] vs 57.8% [95% CI, 52.1%-63.0%] at 10 years; P &lt; .001). Also, delayed surgery was associated with worse 5- and 10-year disease-free survival (59.6% [95% CI, 54.9%-63.9%] vs 72.0% [95% CI, 67.9%-75.7%] at 5 years; 36.2% [95% CI, 29.9%-42.4%] vs 53.9% [95% CI, 48.5%-59.1%] at 10 years; P &lt; .001). At multivariate analysis, a longer waiting time was associated with an augmented risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.50-2.26; P &lt; .001) and death/recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.39-2.04; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, a longer interval before surgery after completing neoadjuvant CRT was associated with worse overall and disease-free survival in tumors with a poor pathological response to preoperative CRT. Based on these findings, patients who do not respond well to CRT should be identified early after the end of CRT and undergo surgery without delay.

Plastic contamination by micro(nano)plastics represents one of the main threats that ecosystems have to currently face. The impact of micro(nano)plastics on organisms and ecosystems is not fully understood neither in the field nor the laboratory because of the lack of analytical methods that allow to accurately detect and quantify the exposure. This is particularly true for small sized microplastics and nanoplastics, whose quali-quantification is troublesome. Different analytical techniques can be used to measure micro(nano)plastics levels in different matrices, but recently the application of thermal analysis emerged as a promising approach. This review highlights the importance and the advantages of thermal analyses to assess the exposure to micro(nano)plastics in ecotoxicological and toxicological studies.

Comprehensive evidence‐based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation was convened for this purpose. A steering committee selected the participants and defined the questions to be addressed. A group of literature reviewers identified 597 studies to be included in summaries for guidelines production. Expert groups formulated the first draft of recommendations. Two rounds of discussion and voting occurred online, using the Delphi method (agreement rate ≥85%). After each round, critical responses of experts were reviewed, and recommendations were amended accordingly. Recommendations were finalized after live discussions. Each session was preceded by expert presentations and a summary of results of systematic literature review. Up to three voting rounds were allowed for each recommendation. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, deliberations on issues regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the management of diabetes were conducted by an independent jury. Recommendations on technical issues were determined by experts and validated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology. Each recommendation received a GRADE rating (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). This article presents the results of literature search and the methods used to provide evidence‐based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation at the First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation.

The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation provided 49 jury deliberations regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the treatment of diabetic patients, and 110 experts’ recommendations for the practice of pancreas transplantation. The main message from this consensus conference is that both simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplantation (SPK) and pancreas transplantation alone can improve long‐term patient survival, and all types of pancreas transplantation dramatically improve the quality of life of recipients. Pancreas transplantation may also improve the course of chronic complications of diabetes, depending on their severity. Therefore, the advantages of pancreas transplantation appear to clearly surpass potential disadvantages. Pancreas after kidney transplantation increases the risk of mortality only in the early period after transplantation, but is associated with improved life expectancy thereafter. Additionally, preemptive SPK, when compared to SPK performed in patients undergoing dialysis, appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Time on dialysis has negative prognostic implications in SPK recipients. Increased long‐term survival, improvement in the course of diabetic complications, and amelioration of quality of life justify preferential allocation of kidney grafts to SPK recipients. Audience discussions and live voting are available online at the following URL address: http://mediaeventi.unipi.it/category/1st‐world‐consensus‐conference‐of‐pancreas‐transplantation/246. This article described how pancreas transplantation impacts on life expectancy, quality of life, and course of diabetic complications based on the jury deliberations and expert recommendations from the First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation.

The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation provided 49 jury deliberations regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the treatment of diabetic patients, and 110 experts’ recommendations for the practice of pancreas transplantation. The main message from this consensus conference is that both simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) and pancreas transplantation alone can improve long-term patient survival, and all types of pancreas transplantation dramatically improve the quality of life of recipients. Pancreas transplantation may also improve the course of chronic complications of diabetes, depending on their severity. Therefore, the advantages of pancreas transplantation appear to clearly surpass potential disadvantages. Pancreas after kidney transplantation increases the risk of mortality only in the early period after transplantation, but is associated with improved life expectancy thereafter. Additionally, preemptive SPK, when compared to SPK performed in patients undergoing dialysis, appears to be associated with improved outcomes. Time on dialysis has negative prognostic implications in SPK recipients. Increased long-term survival, improvement in the course of diabetic complications, and amelioration of quality of life justify preferential allocation of kidney grafts to SPK recipients. Audience discussions and live voting are available online at the following URL address: http://mediaeventi.unipi.it/category/1st-world-consensus-conference-of-pancreas-transplantation/246.