Search

During 2022 a lot of efforts were developed to reduce health-costs by reducing complications and length of hospital stay. Same-day surgery is becoming the standard for all patients scheduled for elective surgery in CHUV. Outpatient colectomy also become a new standard. During 2022, endoscopic bariatric surgery became increasingly used. Not widely performed yet in Switzerland, these treatments deserve to be recognized and considered in various situations. Finally, 2022 saw a promising development of robotic surgery with the acquisition of Da Vinci and Dexter robots after allowing various high-precision surgical procedures.

Intraoperative frozen-section analysis provides real-time margin resection status that can guide intraoperative decisions made by the surgeon and radiation oncologist. For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer undergoing surgery and intraoperative radiation therapy, intraoperative re-resection of positive margins to achieve negative margins is common practice. This study aimed to assess whether re-resection of positive margins found on intraoperative frozen-section analysis improves oncologic outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study. This study was an analysis of a prospectively maintained multicenter database. All patients who underwent surgical resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer with intraoperative radiation therapy between 2000 and 2015 were included and followed for 5 years. Three groups were compared: initial R0 resection, initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection, and initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection. Grossly positive margin resections (R2) were excluded. The primary outcome measures were 5-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local re-recurrence. A total of 267 patients were analyzed (initial R0 resection, n = 94; initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection, n = 95; initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection, n = 78). Overall survival was 4.4 years for initial R0 resection, 2.7 years for initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection, and 2.9 years for initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection ( p = 0.01). Recurrence-free survival was 3.0 years for initial R0 resection and 1.8 years for both initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection and initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection ( p ≤ 0.01). Overall survival did not differ for patients with R1 and re-resection R1 or R0 ( p = 0.62). Recurrence-free survival and freedom from local re-recurrence did not differ between groups. This study was limited by the heterogeneous patient population restricted to those receiving intraoperative radiation therapy. Re-resection of microscopically positive margins to obtain R0 status does not appear to provide a significant survival advantage or prevent local re-recurrence in patients undergoing surgery and intraoperative radiation therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B886 . ANTECEDENTES:El análisis de la ténica de criosección para los margenes positivos encontrados de manera intraoperatoria proporciona el estado de la resección del margen en tiempo real que puede guiar las decisiones intraoperatorias tomadas por el cirujano y el oncólogo radioterapeuta. Para los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente recurrente que se someten a cirugía y radioterapia intraoperatoria, la re-resección intraoperatoria de los márgenes positivos para lograr márgenes negativos es una práctica común.OBJETIVO:Evaluar si la re-resección de los márgenes positivos encontrados en el análisis de la ténica por criosecciónde manera intraoperatorios mejora los resultados oncológicos.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Análisis de una base de datos multicéntrica mantenida de forma prospectiva.POBLACIÓN:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica de cáncer de recto localmente recurrente con radioterapia intraoperatoria entre 2000 y 2015 fueron incluidos y seguidos durante 5 años. Se compararon tres grupos: resección inicial R0, R1 inicial convertido en R0 después de la re-resección y R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección. Se excluyeron las resecciones de márgenes macroscópicamente positivos (R2).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Supervivencia global a cinco años, supervivencia sin recidiva y recidiva local.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron un total de 267 pacientes (resección inicial R0 n = 94, R1 inicial convertido en R0 después de la re-resección n = 95, R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección n = 78). La supervivencia global fue de 4,4 años para la resección inicial R0, 2,7 años para la R1 inicial convertida en R0 después de la re-resección y 2,9 años para la R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección ( p = 0,01). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia fue de 3,0 años para la resección inicial R0 y de 1,8 años para el R1 inicial convertido en R0 después de la re-resección y el R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección ( p ≤ 0,01). La supervivencia global no difirió para los pacientes con R1 y re-resección R1 o R0 ( p = 0,62). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia y la ausencia de recurrencia local no difirieron entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Población de pacientes heterogénea, restringida a aquellos que reciben radioterapia intraoperatoria.CONCLUSIONES:La re-resección de los márgenes microscópicamente positivos para obtener el estado R0 no parece proporcionar una ventaja de supervivencia significativa o prevenir la recurrencia local en pacientes sometidos a cirugía y radioterapia intraoperatoria para el cáncer de recto localmente recurrente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B886 . (Traducción-Dr. Daniel Guerra ).

The efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotics alone compared with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in minimally invasive surgery is still a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess the trend of surgical site infection rates in parallel to the utilization of bowel preparation modality over time for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries in the United States. This study is a retrospective analysis. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was the source of data for this study. Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery and reported bowel preparation modality were included. The primary outcomes measured were the trends and the comparison of surgical site infection rates for mutually exclusive groups according to the underlying disease (colorectal cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease) who underwent bowel preparation using oral antibiotics or combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. Patients who underwent rectal surgery were analyzed separately. A total of 30,939 patients were included. Of them, 12,417 (40%) had rectal resections. Over the 7-year study period, mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation utilization increased from 29.3% in 2012 to 64.0% in 2018; p < 0.0001 at the expense of no preparation and mechanical bowel preparation alone. Similarly, oral antibiotics utilization increased from 2.3% in 2012 to 5.5% in 2018; p < 0.0001. For patients with colon cancer, patients who had oral antibiotics alone had higher superficial surgical site infection rates than patients who had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (1.9% vs 1.1%; p = 0.043). Superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative colon surgery groups (cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease). Patients with rectal cancer who had oral antibiotics had higher rates of deep surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.1%; p = 0.004). However, superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative rectal surgery groups. This study was limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis. This study revealed widespread adoption of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation and increased adoption of oral antibiotics over the study period. Surgical site infection rates are similar from a clinical relevance standpoint among most comparative groups, questioning the systematic preoperative addition of mechanical bowel preparation to oral antibiotics alone in all patients for minimally invasive colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828 . ANTECEDENTES:La eficacia de los antibióticos orales preoperatorios solos en comparación con la preparación intestinal mecánica mas antibióticos orales en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva es un tema de debate que todavía esta en curso.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la tendencia de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico en relacion a la utilización de la modalidad de preparación intestinal a lo largo del tiempo en cirugías colorrectales mínimamente invasivas en los Estados Unidos.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva y reportados con modalidad de preparación intestinal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Tendencias y comparacion de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico para grupos mutuamente excluyentes según la enfermedad subyacente (cáncer colorrectal, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular) que se sometieron a preparación intestinal usando antibióticos orales exclusivamente o preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales. Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía rectal se analizaron por separado.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 30.939 pacientes. De ellos, 12.417 (40%) se sometieron a resecciones rectales. Durante el período de estudio de siete años, la preparación mecánica del intestino y la utilización de antibióticos orales aumentó del 29,3% en 2012 al 64,0% en 2018; p < 0,0001 sobre la no preparación y de la preparación intestinal mecánica exclusivamente. De manera similar, la utilización de antibióticos orales ha aumentado del 2,3% en 2012 al 5,5% en 2018; p < 0,0001. Para los pacientes con cáncer de colon, los pacientes que recibieron antibióticos orales solos tuvieron mayores tasas de infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico en comparación con los pacientes que recibieron una preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales (1,9% frente a 1,1%; p = 0,043). Las tasas de infección superficial, profundo del sitio quirúrgico y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares para todos los demás grupos de cirugía de colon (cáncer, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular). Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que recibieron antibióticos orales tuvieron tasas más altas de infección profunda del sitio quirúrgico (0,9% frente a 0,1%; p = 0,004). Sin embargo, las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial, profundo y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares comparativamente para todos los demás grupos de cirugía rectal.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo del análisis.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio reveló la adopción generalizada de preparación intestinal mecánica y antibióticos orales y una mayor aceptación de antibióticos orales durante el período de estudio. Las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico parecen ser similares desde un punto de vista de relevancia clínica entre la mayoría de los grupos comparados, lo que cuestiona la adición preoperatoria sistemática de preparación intestinal mecánica a antibióticos orales solos en todos los pacientes para cirugía colorrectal mínimamente invasiva. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

The key priority for obstructed colon cancer (OCC) is urgent resolution of the large bowel obstruction with ideally no compromise of oncological outcomes and low initial and permanent ostomy rates. Proactive management is pivotal to decrease the risk of perforation and septic shock. Staged procedures have an important place to provide optimal treatment and offer similar treatment and outcomes as in the elective setting. The approach is tailored to the patient's condition, the oncological situation and expertise of the available surgical team. This overview concludes by proposing a comprehensive treatment algorithm for individualized treatment of OCC.

Anxiety is common before surgery and known to negatively impact recovery from surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a preoperative nurse dialogue on a patient's anxiety, satisfaction and early postoperative outcomes. This 1:1 randomized controlled trial compared patients undergoing major visceral surgery after a semistructured preoperative nurse dialogue (interventional group: IG) to a control group (CG) without nursing intervention prior to surgery. Anxiety was measured with the autoevaluation scale State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Y-form) pre and postoperatively. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) In-Patsat32 questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction at discharge. Further outcomes included postoperative pain (visual analogue scale: VAS 0-10), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opiate consumption and length of stay (LOS). Over a period of 6 months, 35 participants were randomized to either group with no drop-out or loss to follow-up (total n = 70). The median score of preoperative anxiety was 40 (IQR 33-55) in the IG vs. 61 (IQR 52-68) in the CG (p < 0.001). Postoperative anxiety levels were comparable 34 (IQR 25-46) vs. 32 (IQR 25-44) for IG and CG, respectively (p = 0.579). The IG did not present higher overall satisfaction (90 ± 15 vs. 82.9 ± 16, p = 0.057), and pain at Day 2 was similar (1.3 ± 1.7 vs. 2 ± 1.9, p = 0.077), while opiate consumption, PONV levels and LOS were comparable. A preoperative dialogue with a patient-centered approach helped to reduce preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing major visceral surgery.

Closed-wound negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) dressings were recently introduced with the purpose to reduce incisional surgical site infections (iSSI) in high-risk wounds. The aim of this study was to compare iSSI rates in patients after ostomy closure with and without additional application of a closed-wound NPWT dressing. Single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing ileo- or colostomy closure over an 8-year period (January 2013—January 2021). Intradermal non-purse string technique with absorbable sutures were used in all patients. Since November 2018, all patients (study group) received a NPWT device for a maximum of 5 days postoperatively (PICO, SMITH AND NEPHEW). Primary outcome was iSSI rate within 30 days of surgery. SSI was defined in accordance with the Center of Disease Control (CDC) classification and included superficial and deep incisional SSI. Data was retrieved from the institutional enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) database, with standardized complication assessment by trained abstractors. In total, 85 patients (25%) in the study group were comparable with 252 (75%) patients in the control group regarding demographics (age, gender, body mass index, ASA score), ostomy type and anastomotic technique (all p > 0.05), but not wound contamination class (class III: 5% vs 0%, p p = 0.097). These preliminary results suggest a potential benefit of systematic application of the NPWT device after loop ostomy closure. A randomized controlled study is needed.

Over the last decade, surgical management of colon cancer became more individualized due to new preoperative, surgical and oncological strategies. Recent high-level evidence demonstrated a favorable impact of these advanced concepts, which require proper planning and challenging surgical management form a technical standpoint, on cancer-specific survival. To tailor the best strategy, cases have to be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards with specialists in medical oncology, radiology, gastroenterology and pathology. In this review, these innovations are summarized within their scientific context, with focus on new strategies of preoperative bowel preparation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and technical aspects, to illustrate the complexity of current colon cancer management.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are now implemented worldwide with strong evidence that adhesion to such protocol reduces medical complications, costs and hospital stay. This concept has been applied for pancreatic surgery since the first published guidelines in 2012. This study presents the updated ERAS recommendations for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus. A systematic literature search was conducted in three databases (Embase, Medline Ovid and Cochrane Library Wiley) for the 27 developed ERAS items. Quality of randomized trials was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement checklist. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations. A total of 314 articles were included in the systematic review. Consensus among experts was reached after three rounds. A well-implemented ERAS protocol with good compliance is associated with a reduction in medical complications and length of hospital stay. The highest level of evidence was available for five items: avoiding hypothermia, use of wound catheters as an alternative to epidural analgesia, antimicrobial and thromboprophylaxis protocols and preoperative nutritional interventions for patients with severe weight loss (> 15%). The current updated ERAS recommendations for PD are based on the best available evidence and processed by the Delphi method. Prospective studies of high quality are encouraged to confirm the benefit of current updated recommendations.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was introduced as a new treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases in November, 2011. Reports of its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy have encouraged centres worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a novel drug delivery technique. In this Review, we detail the technique and rationale of PIPAC and critically assess its evidence and potential indications. A systematic search was done to identify all relevant literature on PIPAC published between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2019. A total of 106 articles or reports on PIPAC were identified, and 45 clinical studies on 1810 PIPAC procedures in 838 patients were included for analysis. Repeated PIPAC delivery was feasible in 64% of patients with few intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications (3% for each in prospective studies). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events greater than grade 2) occurred after 12-15% of procedures, and commonly included bowel obstruction, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Repeated PIPAC did not have a negative effect on quality of life. Using PIPAC, an objective clinical response of 62-88% was reported for patients with ovarian cancer (median survival of 11-14 months), 50-91% for gastric cancer (median survival of 8-15 months), 71-86% for colorectal cancer (median survival of 16 months), and 67-75% (median survival of 27 months) for peritoneal mesothelioma. From our findings, PIPAC has been shown to be feasible and safe. Data on objective response and quality of life were encouraging. Therefore, PIPAC can be considered as a treatment option for refractory, isolated peritoneal metastasis of various origins. However, its use in further indications needs to be validated by prospective studies.