Search

Background and aim The application of laparoscopy in elderly patients with gastric cancer is controversial, especially in Western population. The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility of a laparoscopic approach and compare short-term outcomes with results obtained using traditional open surgery. Methods Data concerning 52 elderly patients (≥70 years), who underwent distal gastrectomy at our institution from January 2017 to August 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. We divided the population into two cohorts according to the surgical technique (laparoscopic or open surgery) and we compared the short-term outcomes. The open and laparoscopic cohorts were compared in terms of demographics, ASA score, pTNM stage, the pathological pattern according to Lauren classification, time of surgery, selected type of gastrointestinal reconstruction, the extension of lymphadenectomy and number of lymph nodes resected, postoperative complications classified according to modified Clavien-Dindo system, length of stay (LOS), postoperative mortality within 30 days. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for length of stay, including age, sex, duration of surgery, BMI, technique, tumor localization, grading, reconstruction, ASA, Lauren stage, extension of lymphadenectomy, TNM stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy as variables. Results Demographics, pathological characteristics and surgical outcomes were comparable in both cohorts, except for the length of hospital stay (LOS) that was significative longer in the open cohort (12,31 vs 8,42 P  = 0.02). Number of harvested lymph nodes and complete resection (R0) rate were similar, leading to comparable oncological results. Based on the univariate analysis, in addition to the approach, ASA score was another factor significantly associated to LOS (ASA 2 8,4 ± 2,1 days vs ASA 3 13,5 ± 7,8 days). A multiple regression was run to predict LOS from ASA and surgical approach. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted LOS, F(3,44) = 6,906, P  < 0,002. The surgical approach showed a certain trend to significance in predicting LOS, P  = 0,09. Conclusion Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is effective and safe in elderly patients with similar short-term outcomes compared to open distal gastrectomy. The main advantage of laparoscopic technique is a shorter length of hospital stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Non-operative management (NOM) of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is a well-established alternative to upfront surgery. The administration of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics is usually performed in hospital, and only one study described outpatient NOM. The aim of this multicentre retrospective non-inferiority study was to evaluate both safety and non-inferiority of outpatient compared to inpatient NOM in uncomplicated acute appendicitis., Methods: The study included 668 consecutive patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients were treated according to the surgeon's preference: 364 upfront appendectomy, 157 inpatient NOM (inNOM), and 147 outpatient NOM (outNOM). The primary endpoint was the 30-day appendectomy rate, with a non-inferiority limit of 5%. Secondary endpoints were negative appendectomy rate, 30-day unplanned emergency department (ED) visits, and length of stay., Results: 30-day appendectomies were 16 (10.9%) in the outNOM group and 23 (14.6%) in the inNOM group (p = 0.327). OutNOM was non-inferior to inNOM with a risk difference of-3.80% 97.5% CI (- 12.57; 4.97). No difference was found between inNOM and outNOM groups for the number of complicated appendicitis (3 vs. 5) and negative appendectomy (1 vs. 0). Twenty-six (17.7%) outNOM patients required an unplanned ED visit after a median of 1 (1-4) days. In the outNOM group, the mean cumulative in-hospital stay was 0.89 (1.94) days compared with 3.94 (2.17) days in the inNOM group (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Outpatient NOM was non-inferior to inpatient NOM with regard to the 30-day appendectomy rate, while a shorter hospital stay was found in the outNOM group. Further, studies are required to confirm these findings., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Incisional hernia is a common short- and long-term complication of laparotomy and can lead to significant morbidity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date overview of the laparotomy closure method in elective and emergency settings with the prophylactic mesh augmentation technique., Methods: The Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were screened without time restrictions up to 21 June 2022 using the keywords 'laparotomy closure', 'mesh', 'mesh positioning', and 'prophylactic mesh', and including medical subject headings terms. Only RCTs reporting the incidence of incisional hernia and other wound complications after elective or emergency midline laparotomy, where patients were treated with prophylactic mesh augmentation or without mesh positioning, were included. The primary endpoint was to explore the risk of incisional hernia at different follow-up time points. The secondary endpoint was the risk of wound complications. The risk of bias for individual studies was assessed according to the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials., Results: Eighteen RCTs, including 2659 patients, were retrieved. A reduction in the risk of incisional hernia at every time point was highlighted in the prophylactic mesh augmentation group (1 year, risk ratio 0.31, P = 0.0011; 2 years, risk ratio 0.44, P < 0.0001; 3 years, risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.0026; 4 years, risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.0257). An increased risk of wound complications was highlighted for patients undergoing mesh augmentation, although this was not significant., Conclusions: Midline laparotomy closure with prophylactic mesh augmentation can be considered safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia. Further trials are needed to identify the ideal type of mesh and technique for mesh positioning, but surgeons should consider prophylactic mesh augmentation to decrease incisional hernia rate, especially in high-risk patients for fascial dehiscence and even in emergency settings., Prospero Registration Id: CRD42022336242 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/record&#95;email.php)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: Less invasive alternatives than early cholecystectomy (EC) for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) treatment have been spreading in recent years. We still lack a reliable tool to select high-risk patients who could benefit from these alternatives. Our study aimed to prospectively validate the Chole-risk score in predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing EC for ACC compared with other preoperative risk prediction models., Method: The S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study is a World Society of Emergency Surgery prospective multicenter observational study. From 1st September 2021 to 1st September 2022, 1253 consecutive patients admitted in 79 centers were included. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of ACC and to be a candidate for EC. A Cochran-Armitage test of the trend was run to determine whether a linear correlation existed between the Chole-risk score and a complicated postoperative course. To assess the accuracy of the analyzed prediction models-POSSUM Physiological Score (PS), modified Frailty Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), APACHE II score, and ACC severity grade-receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic abilities., Results: A 30-day major morbidity of 6.6% and 30-day mortality of 1.1% were found. Chole-risk was validated, but POSSUM PS was the best risk prediction model for a complicated course after EC for ACC (in-hospital mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; 30-day mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; in-hospital major morbidity: AUC 0.73, p < 0.001; 30-day major morbidity: AUC 0.70, p < 0.001). POSSUM PS with a cutoff of 25 (defined in our study as a 'Chole-POSSUM' score) was then validated in a separate cohort of patients. It showed a 100% sensitivity and a 100% negative predictive value for mortality and a 96-97% negative predictive value for major complications., Conclusions: The Chole-risk score was externally validated, but the CHOLE-POSSUM stands as a more accurate prediction model. CHOLE-POSSUM is a reliable tool to stratify patients with ACC into a low-risk group that may represent a safe EC candidate, and a high-risk group, where new minimally invasive endoscopic techniques may find the most useful field of action., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04995380., (© 2023. The Author(s).)