Search

Twenty-seven experts under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC) offer this reference system with formalized recommendations concerning the performance of right colectomy by robotic approach (RRC). For RRC, experts suggest patient installation in the so-called "classic" or "suprapubic" setup. For patients undergoing right colectomy for a benign pathology or cancer, RRC provides no significant benefit in terms of intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative complications or conversion rate to laparotomy compared to laparoscopy. At the same time, RRC is associated with significantly longer operating times. Data from the literature are insufficient to define whether the robot facilitates the performance of an intra-abdominal anastomosis, but the robotic approach is more frequently associated with an intra-abdominal anastomosis than the laparoscopic approach. Experts also suggest that RRC offers a benefit in terms of post-operative morbidity compared to right colectomy by laparotomy. No benefit is retained in terms of mortality, duration of hospital stay, histological results, overall survival or disease-free survival in RRC performed for cancer. In addition, RRC should not be performed based on the cost/benefit ratio, since RRC is associated with significantly higher costs than laparoscopy and laparotomy. Future research in the field of RRC should consider the evaluation of patient-targeted parameters such as pain or quality of life and the technical advantages of the robot for complex procedural steps, as well as surgical and oncological results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Few prospective data exist on outcomes of surgery in Crohn's disease [CD] complicated by an intra-abdominal abscess after resolution of this abscess by antibiotics optionally combined with drainage. Methods From 2013 to 2015, all patients undergoing elective surgery for CD after successful non-operative management of an intra-abdominal abscess [Abscess-CD group] were selected from a nationwide multicentre prospective cohort. Resolution of the abscess had to be computed tomography/magnetic resonance-proven prior to surgery. Abscess-CD group patients were 1:1 matched to uncomplicated CD [Non-Penetrating-CD group] using a propensity score. Postoperative results and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Among 592 patients included in the registry, 63 [11%] fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The abscess measured 37 ± 20 mm and was primarily managed with antibiotics combined with drainage in 14 patients and nutritional support in 45 patients. At surgery, a residual fluid collection was found in 16 patients [25%]. Systemic steroids within 3 months before surgery [ p  = 0.013] and the absence of preoperative enteral support [ p  = 0.001] were identified as the two significant risk factors for the persistence of a fluid collection. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference between the Abscess-CD and Non-Penetrating-CD groups in the rates of primary anastomosis [84% vs 90% respectively, p  = 0.283], overall [28% vs 15% respectively, p  = 0.077] and severe postoperative morbidity [7% vs 7% respectively, p  = 1.000]. One-year recurrence rates for endoscopic recurrence were 41% in the Abscess-CD and 51% in the Non-Penetrating-CD group [ p  = 0.159]. Conclusions Surgery after successful non-operative management of intra-abdominal abscess complicating CD provides good early and long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims The aim of this study was to report a multicentric experience of segmental colectomy [SC] in ulcerative colitis [UC] patients without active colitis, in order to assess if SC can or cannot represent an alternative to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. Methods All UC patients undergoing SC were included. Postoperative complications according to ClavienDindo's classification, long term results, and risk factors for postoperative colitis and reoperation for colitis on the remnant colon, were assessed. Results: A total of 72 UC patients underwent: sigmoidectomy [ n = 28], right colectomy [ n = 24], proctectomy [ n = 11], or left colectomy [ n = 9] for colonic cancer [ n = 27], 'diverticulitis' [ n = 17], colonic stenosis [ n = 5], dysplasia or polyps [ n = 8], and miscellaneous [ n = 15]. Three patients died postoperatively and 5/69 patients [7%] developed early flare of UC within 3 months after SC. After a median followup of 40 months, 24/69 patients [35%] were reoperated after a median delay after SC of 19 months [range, 2–158 months]: 22/24 [92%] underwent total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis [ n = 9] or total coloproctectomy [TCP] [ n = 13] and 2/24 [8%] an additional SC. Reasons for reoperation were: colitis [ n = 14; 20%], cancer [ n = 3] or dysplasia [ n = 3], colonic stenosis [ n = 1], and unknown reasons [ n = 3]. Endoscopic score of colitis before SC was Mayo 23 in 5/5 [100%] patients with early flare vs 15/42 without early flare [36%; p = 0.0101] and in 9/12 [75%] patients with reoperation for colitis vs 11/35 without reoperation [31%; p = 0.016]. Conclusions After segmental colectomy in UC patients, postoperative early colitis is rare [7%]. Segmental colectomy could possibly represent an alternative to IPAA in selected UC patients without active colitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical management of obstructive left colon cancer (OLCC) is controversial. The objective is to report on postoperative and oncological outcomes of the different surgical options in patients operated on for OLCC. From 2000–2015, 1500 patients were treated for OLCC in centers members of the French Surgical Association. Colonic stent (n = 271), supportive care (n = 5), palliative derivation (n = 4) were excluded. Among 1220 remaining patients, 456 had primary diverting colostomy (PDC), 329 a segmental colectomy (SC), 246 a Hartmann's procedure (HP) and 189 a subtotal colectomy (STC) as first-stage surgery. Perioperative data and oncological outcomes were compared retrospectively. There was no difference between the 4 groups regarding gender, age, BMI and comorbidities. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 4–27% (PDC), 6–47% (SC), 9–55% (HP), 13–60% (STC), respectively (P = 0.005). Among the 431 living patients after PDC, 321 (70%) patients had their primary tumour removed. Cumulative mortality and morbidity favoured PDC (7–39%) and SC (6–40%) compared to HP (1–47%) and STC (13–50%) (P = 0.04). At the end of follow-up definitive stoma rates were 39% (HP), 24% (PDC), 10% (SC), and 8% (STC) (P < 0.0001). Five-year overall and disease-free survival was: SC (67–55%), PDC (54–48%), HP (54–37%) and STC (48–49%). After multivariate analysis, SC and PDC were associated with better prognosis compared to HP and STC. In OLCC, SC and PDC are the two preferred options in patients with good medical conditions. For patients with severe comorbidities PDC should be recommended, reserving HP and STC for patients with colonic ischaemia or perforation complicating malignant obstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Rectal cancer involving at least one adjacent organ (mrT4b) requires multi-visceral resection to achieve clear resection margin (R0). Performing pelvic compartment preservation according to the tumour response has not been considered. This study assesses the impact of changing the surgical strategy according to tumour response in rectal cancer mrT4b. Methods Patients with non-metastatic T4b rectal cancer at two tertiary referral centres between 2008 and 2013 were grouped as “Responders” ypT0-3abNx versus “Non-responders” ypT3cd-4Nx and divided into three surgical procedures: total mesorectal excision (TME), extended-TME (eTME) and beyond-TME (b-TME). End-points were circumferential resection margin, postoperative morbidity, definitive stoma formation, 3-years local recurrence (3y-LR) and 3-years disease-free survival (3y-DFS) according to both tumours' response and surgical procedures. Results Among 883 patients with rectal cancer, 101 were included. Responders had a higher rate of induction chemotherapy (59.7% vs. 38.2%; p = 0.04). Morbidity and definitive stoma formation were significantly higher in Non-responders. R0 was not impacted by either the tumour response or the surgical procedures. The 3y-LR was lower in Responders (14%) compared to Non Responders (32%) (HR 1.6; 95% CI: 1.02–2.59; p = 0.041), and was two-fold higher in e-TME compared to b-TME in Non-responders, whereas no difference was found in Responders. The 3y-DFS was higher in Responders irrespective to the surgery (71% vs. 47%; p = 0.07). Conclusion In Responders, TME or e-TME are technically and oncollogically feasible and should be considered in preferrence to b-TME. In Non-responders, allowing for high rates of morbidity and local recurrence in patients with e-TME, b-TME procedures should be preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a significant worldwide variation in practice regarding the criteria for operative intervention and overall management in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). A survival benefit has been described for patients with clear resection margins in patients undergoing surgery for LRRC which is seen as an important surgical quality indicator. Methods A prospective French national database was established in 2008 which recorded procedures undertaken for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Overall and Disease-Free Survival (OS, DFS) were assessed retrospectively. We report the variability and the heterogeneity of LRRC management in France as well as 5-year oncological outcomes. Results In this national report, 104 questionnaires were completed at 29 French surgical centres with a high variability of cases-loaded. Patients had preoperative treatment in 86% of cases. Surgical procedures included APER (36%), LAR (25%), Hartmann's procedure (21%) and pelvic exenterations (15.5%). Four patients had a low sacrectomy (S4/S5). There were no postoperative deaths and overall morbidity was 41%. R0 was achieved in 60%, R1 and R2 in 29% and 11%, respectively. R0 resection resulted in a 5-year OS of 35% compared to 12% and 0% for respectively R1 and R2 (OR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.4–2.98; p < 0.001). OS was similar between R2 and non-resected patients (OR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.58–3.76; p = 0.418). Conclusions Our data is in accordance with the literature except the rate of extended resection procedures. This underlines the selective character of operative indications for LRRC in France as well as the care variability and the absence of optimal clinical pathway regarding these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity after gastro-intestinal surgery is widely used. The rationale is that intra-abdominal drainage enhances early detection of complications (gastro-intestinal leakage, hemorrhage, bile leak), prevents collection of fluid or pus, reduces morbidity and mortality, and decreases the duration of hospital stay. However, dogmatic attitudes favoring systematic drain placement should be questioned. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence supporting systematic use of prophylactic abdominal drainage following gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, and rectal resection. Based on this review of the literature: (i) there was no evidence in favor of intra-peritoneal drainage following total or sub-total gastrectomy with respect to morbidity-mortality, nor was it helpful in the diagnosis or management of leakage, however the level of evidence is low, (ii) following pancreatic resection, data are conflicting but, overall, suggest that the absence of drainage is prejudicial, and support the notion that short-term drainage is better than long-term drainage, (iii) after liver resection without hepatico-intestinal anastomosis, high level evidence supports that there is no need for abdominal drainage, and (iv) following rectal resection, data are insufficient to establish recommendations. However, results from the French multicenter randomized controlled trial GRECCAR5 ( NCT01269567 ) should provide new evidence this coming year. Accumulating data support that systematic drainage of the abdominal cavity in digestive surgery is a non-beneficial and obsolete practice, except following pancreatectomy where the consensus appears to indicate the usefulness of short-term drainage. While the level of evidence is high for liver resections, new randomized controlled trials are awaited regarding gastric, pancreatic and rectal surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]